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

[Christophera]

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".

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

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

I'm not sure there is a wall of any sort in that image. It looks like dust/smoke between columns. There is no apparent upper boundary and it matches the colors of the surrounding dust/smoke.

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

Even though I can't understand this, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't address my point.

 

[tacodaemon]

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.

You know, even after nearly 250 pages I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity and detail of Chris's made-up memories of an imaginary documentary.

 

[uruk]

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.

I've provided ample evidence for a steel core as others here have also.
everyone here agrees to that point.

I am not twisting anything, I am simply presenting your posts as you presented them. Your the one who posted the erroneous and conflicting information.
And now your the one who's trying to weasle out of it by trying to change the issue. You can't hand wave your error away.
Be a man and admit to it.

In post 5607 You said Jebson was in wrong about his obsevation. In post 8960 you used the same observation to support your statement.

 

[Christophera]

You know, even after nearly 250 pages I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity and detail of Chris's made-up memories of an imaginary documentary.

Call them what you like but they allow me to identify things you cannot and they come from the 1990 documentary.

For example the concrete shear wall holding up the spire. If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.

 

[NickUK]

If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.

 

[Christophera]

I'm not sure there is a wall of any sort in that image. It looks like dust/smoke between columns. There is no apparent upper boundary and it matches the colors of the surrounding dust/smoke.

In this zoom you can see that what is on the left is not a steel column and that its; light color with rough broken edge show it is a concrete shear 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.

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

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

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

Even though I can't understand this, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't address my point.

The cameraman was in a vehicle I think. The point is that they are not the same image and the object has changed significantly. It is lower and no longer comprised of a large steel column with framework below it. The second image is comprised of fine vertical elements not heavy steel columns with framework supporting them.

 

[Christophera]

Do you have an explanation for what the whiteish, thick object is 500 feet off the ground?

 

[Bell]

Do you have an explanation for what the <spam> whiteish, thick object is 500 feet off the ground?

Do you have an explanation for the buckling?

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

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

Do you have an explanation for where the concrete is?

Where is the concrete, Chris?

edit: webpage here
7th picture from the top.

And finaly, do you have an answer to Mr. Kcin's question?

Which is heavier:

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

 

[Christophera]

I've provided ample evidence for a steel core as others here have also.
everyone here agrees to that point.

I am not twisting anything, I am simply presenting your posts as you presented them. Your the one who posted the erroneous and conflicting information.
And now your the one who's trying to weasle out of it by trying to change the issue. You can't hand wave your error away.
Be a man and admit to it.

In post 5607 You said Jebson was in wrong about his obsevation. In post 8960 you used the same observation to support your statement.

Jebson saw the concrete core being cast standing free at street level. This matched what I saw in the 1990 documentary. The documentary also said that after the 5th floor all concrete core casting work was done inside the outer steel framework. That being the case, Jebson would not have been able to see what was going on so couldno tsay how the core was constrcuted after that point.

 

[NickUK]

Do you have an explanation for what the whiteish, thick object is 500 feet off the ground?

The temptation to say 'clue glue' is almost overwhelming

You've posted this picture a billion times now with your explanations imposed on it. The reality, Chris, is that it's an exceptionally bad capture from an already crappy quality video. It looks to me like dust and smoke. It don't look anything like concrete.

 

[Christophera]

The temptation to say 'clue glue' is almost overwhelming

You've posted this picture a billion times now with your explanations imposed on it. The reality, Chris, is that it's an exceptionally bad capture from an already crappy quality video. It looks to me like dust and smoke. It don't look anything like concrete.

It seems that everything which does not agree with the official structure is dust and smoke. Which of course is not reasonable and logical meaning that you are simply using that as everyone else does here to dismiss good evidence reasonably used.

The idea is that near free fall must be explained and a concrete core which is used as a container for high explosives explains it. Since I happen to know for certain that there was a concrete core and that the rebar in it had a special plastic coating and we have events that look like this are present, we have to say that you are supporting a lie, 'cause that much concrete cannot explode that completely unless the explosives are perfectly placed and distributed within it.

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

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The perimeter columns supported 50%, the interior box columns 30% and the core 20%.

The interior box columns were very substancial, much larger than the perimeter columns as they were spaced on 20 foot centers.

where did this info come from? are you remembering more of this elusive documentary you saw 15 years ago or have you found another source?

 

[hcmom]

Call them what you like but they allow me to identify things you cannot and they come from the 1990 documentary.

Speaking for myself only, I call them the voices in my head....

For example the concrete shear wall holding up the spire. If it weren't for me no one would have a logical explanation for that.

If it weren't for Chris, there would be no one who saw a concrete shear wall...

 

[Christophera]

Do you have an explanation for the buckling?

Yes. The buckling is most likely the core being detonated in one 40 foot zone first on one side will get that effect. With a few interior box columns getting cut then a few floors detonating. Perhaps just cutting the interior box columns at one floor on one side would do it because as far as i remember the cores horizontal bar was continuous around the concrete shear walls and so you couldn't just do one side. But you could start there after it was weakened on one side because the floor panels were separate explosive circuits.

Do you have an explanation for where the concrete is?

The concrete is in the center of the building of course. When it detonates on one side it leans heavy on the interior core columns and taking out one or 2 of those makes a very effective mimic of a collapse

And finaly, do you have an answer to Mr. Kcin's question?

That is a really ridiculous question which answer explains nothing. The larger number of floors of course weighs more.

Since fires from those sources cannot heat steel enough to cause failures on the scale required, and the planes did not cause failures immediately, the only explanation for the tops of the towers falling the wrong directions is demolitions.

 

[Christophera]

If it weren't for Chris, there would be no one who saw a concrete shear wall...

Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.

 

[firecoins]

245 pages of nonsense. Someday this thread will end.

 

[Christophera]

245 pages of nonsense. Someday this thread will end.

Hopefully in a free nation having an intact constitution gained by united people unafraid of truth

 

[Bell]

Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.

But yet they discussed it for over an hour in an documentary, whilst it was highly secret. How is that, Chris?

Also, did the core had DIAGONAL cross bracing?

 

[Bell]

Yes. The buckling is most likely

Don't be silly Chris

Note that in this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863
The buckling can be seen many seconds before the tower collapses.

The concrete is in the center of the building of course.

Prolly you did not understand the question or what to look at.

Where is the concrete, Chris?
Please look at this webpage
7th picture from the top

That is a really ridiculous question which answer explains nothing. The larger number of floors of course weighs more.

But thanks for answering though.