• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bell said:
But yet they discussed it for over an hour in an documentary, whilst it was highly secret. How is that, Chris?
Click to expand...

In 1990 it was not a secret, obviously. It was common knowledge amongst people who knew architecture. Those people still know, they just don't know about the FEMA lie, or perhaps approve of it.

Bell said:
Also, did the core have DIAGONAL cross bracing?
Click to expand...

No. It was a special shear wall construction. Rodger Harris made some good points about rebar sizes, the center to center of 4 foot seemed a lot to him. In the discussion regarding wall thickness I had with beachnut where he couldn't understand why the wall was only 2 foot thick at the top, I realized that the horizontal rebar was very dense which served to work with the 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers to enhance the diagonal shear strength of the walls.

The points Rodger made got me comparing, intuitively, (I am not an engineer), the rebar in the core walls to standard concrete walls I've seen and the walls or core really was designed to deal with torsion in a big way. The winds put a big twist on the tower at the top as the faces would "fly".

The image of the rebar
 shows the rebar tips sloping. The documentary actually explained, indirectly, why that happened like that. Two reasons, 1.) The rebar butt welds were done on the slope by specification to reduce the chance of a fracture across the core on a horizontal line, torsion resistence. The sloping rebar welds followed the concrete which was mounded up inside the forms to a high point at the corners forming a sawtooth joint between pours making the core more resistant to torsion.
2.) The rebar on the side in the linked image sat out in the weather and the special plastic coating lost its "protective viability", stated in the documentary. In reality the plastic explosive had lost its viability and that is why the vertical rebar still stood. The horizontal rebar coating was fresh and blew the concrete off to expose the tops on a slope.
 
Christophera said:
The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.
Click to expand...

C'mon Chris...it isn't weak answers like this keeping us all here. Take a little longer if you need to...
 
Christophera said:
In 1990 it was not a secret, obviously. It was common knowledge amongst people who knew architecture. Those people still know, they just don't know about the FEMA lie, or perhaps approve of it.
Click to expand...

Chris, in 1990, the official story was that the towers had steel cores. It was one of the few things I knew about them then. According to you, this was a lie told way back in the late 60s to cover up the lack of concrete that would be seen when they got round to blowing them up.

If they were paranoid enough to do this on Day 1, how come they relaxed enough to tell this documentatry crew about the concrete core in 1990? Not to mention banging on and on and ON about rebar and its super-special coating.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Chris, if you're claiming that normal fires don't weaken structural steel to the point of failure then I'm going to have to prove you wrong. It's not hard.
 
Dearie, Dearie Me

No. It was a special shear wall construction. Rodger Harris made some good points about rebar sizes, the center to center of 4 foot seemed a lot to him. In the discussion regarding wall thickness I had with beachnut where he couldn't understand why the wall was only 2 foot thick at the top, I realized that the horizontal rebar was very dense which served to work with the 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers to enhance the diagonal shear strength of the walls.

The points Rodger made got me comparing, intuitively, (I am not an engineer), the rebar in the core walls to standard concrete walls I've seen and the walls or core really was designed to deal with torsion in a big way. The winds put a big twist on the tower at the top as the faces would "fly".
Click to expand...

This is unmitigated rubbish, and shows your complete lack of understanding of structural issues. And just to compound matters, I've already explained part of it but it was amongst the "difficult" questions you chose to ignore.

Let's look at it again.

Concrete is excellent in compression, but extremely poor in tension. For this reason we incorporate steel reinforcement (steel being excellent in tension but not so hot in compression).

Now, if we were to only put in the reinforcement at (say) 300mm centres then there is a ridiculous amount of concrete which is effective only in compression. Yet you claim that the concrete core is acting in torsion (haha) and thus tensile strenses will be a major design issue! Your claim that this is dealt with by the horizontal reinforcement - you omit the size of this, by the way - is ludicrous.

Likewise let's look at the idea of 75mm reinforcing bar. What you're effectively suggesting is that the wall is reinforced with solid round section steel columns, rather than (say) simply increasing the centres of standard reinforcing sections (which would solve manual handling problems and be cheaper). Then you say these are all welded, rather than lapped and tied per normal practice.

A further issue you fail to address in previous questions is the means of jointing the horizontal and vertical sections. Reinforcement layout it quite complex, as loads do strange things at junctions, and tend to be quite cumbersome if there's a lot. Perhaps you could tell me what evidence they had for how these were formed here?

I have to hand it to you Chris, you're providing amusement while this knee heals.
 
Architect said:
This is unmitigated rubbish, and shows your complete lack of understanding of structural issues. And just to compound matters, I've already explained part of it but it was amongst the "difficult" questions you chose to ignore.

Let's look at it again.

Concrete is excellent in compression, but extremely poor in tension. For this reason we incorporate steel reinforcement (steel being excellent in tension but not so hot in compression).

Now, if we were to only put in the reinforcement at (say) 300mm centres then there is a ridiculous amount of concrete which is effective only in compression. Yet you claim that the concrete core is acting in torsion (haha) and thus tensile strenses will be a major design issue! Your claim that this is dealt with by the horizontal reinforcement - you omit the size of this, by the way - is ludicrous.

Likewise let's look at the idea of 75mm reinforcing bar. What you're effectively suggesting is that the wall is reinforced with solid round section steel columns, rather than (say) simply increasing the centres of standard reinforcing sections (which would solve manual handling problems and be cheaper). Then you say these are all welded, rather than lapped and tied per normal practice.

A further issue you fail to address in previous questions is the means of jointing the horizontal and vertical sections. Reinforcement layout it quite complex, as loads do strange things at junctions, and tend to be quite cumbersome if there's a lot. Perhaps you could tell me what evidence they had for how these were formed here?

I have to hand it to you Chris, you're providing amusement while this knee heals.
Click to expand...

Educating post, Architect. To bad Chris will disregard it, though.
 
Christophera said:
You've got me with the above. Thirty 3" rebar on 4' centers. There are 20 across the cameras view and they are visible which means the assertion of the deniers that a 3 inch rebar will not resolve in a pixel is completely erroneous. Or, simply waving around make sthe needed exposure. Whatever, the fine veritcal elements are definitely there and very small.

I really do not sweat small details when such BIG ones are so erroneouly evaluated and ignored.
Click to expand...

If you can't get the small details right, how can you expect to get the important stuff right ?

In other words, when evidence is removed and destroyed in 3,000 capitol crimes
Click to expand...

Ah, they're "capitol" again ?

Common sense and logic, which completely escape you.
Click to expand...

The same common sense that tell you the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster ?

Welded makes them "one piece"
Click to expand...

Well that proves beyond any doubt that you don't know anything about construction. Don't cry, though.

If you cannot produce an image of any of the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns in the core area, but insist they exist desipte the fact that the event that would expose them if they existed does not show them, and the perpetrators of 3,000 murders are escaping based on a deception related to the core structure of the towers, you are a sociopath.
Click to expand...

You also get your psychological disorders wrong.

Produce an image of the concrete core being built.
Click to expand...

We are only working with available information here.
Click to expand...

Does that excuse for work us, too ?
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Praise JEEZ-US he answered the question.

Now, Chris, why should we believe your word that the fires couldn't cause "failures on the scale required"? Are you a structural engineer?

Every expert disagrees with your theories, so you need some qualification to call their experience into question. Without some kind of experience or substantial evidence, you are totally unqualified to evaluate still images and claim they show anything.

You say everyone who disagrees with you is either a shill or an idiot. So prove it. Prove you know what you're talking about. Prove they're shills. Prove you know what you're talking about.

You must have extensive math, physics, engineering, and demolitions experience to be able to determine all this new information from a few grainy photos. But wait, you don't, and you claim that this fact is somehow immaterial to the matter at hand, but that's ridiculous.

You can try to bully us into agreeing that your pictures show amazing evidence all you want, but it won't work. If someone isn't convinced, then show more evidence. If you don't have any, then get more.

I don't know what kind of people you think we are, but we're not going to be insulted and strong-armed into agreeing with you because you call us names.

The truth has a funny way of being supported by converging threads of evidence, but your "truth" has a funny way of being supported by some blurry photos and people that don't even understand high school physics.
 
JonnyFive said:
Praise JEEZ-US he answered the question.
Click to expand...

Well, he answered a question, anyway.

I'm still waiting to hear:

  1. Why the buidlings were supposedly planted with explosives
  2. How the explosives lasted at least three times their shelf life
  3. Even if they did, why the relevant evil people thought they would still work after all that time
  4. Why they didn't "pull" the towers after the abortive van-bombing in 1993, instead of waiting another 8 1/2 years to do so.
  5. What was in this alleged disappeared documentary
  6. Why the evildoers told the documentary crew in such ludicrous detail about this supposedly non-existent concrete core and the super-special rebar coating, when the official story was that the towers had steel cores
  7. Why the documentary wasn't stifled at birth instead of ten years ater, by which time the damage was presumably done
  8. Why no architect or structural engineer watched this documentary and said "Hang on! I thought the WTC towers had steel cores!"
  9. Why the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution, was told about the "non-existent" concrete core in the first place, and why they deleted all records of the book because of one paragraph
  10. Why nobody but Christophera seems to wonder why most of the steel in the wreckage was in the form of thick rebar
The nearest I got to an answer to any of these was on number 1, where Chris' informative answer was "various reasons".
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of making something a secret again after it's been publicized. Seems to me that secrecy is like virginity; highly prized but once it's gone, it's gone.
Click to expand...

But, you see, they used their special mind-wipe rays to destroy all evidence of it and memory of it in everyone's minds.

Except for one man, crusading against evil in a world of mind-slaves... Christophera!
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow. It just took you two days to make up this excuse and as expected you pulled out the all mighty "documentary" as all purpose balm for you lies and mistakes. You are pathetic Chris. This lie just makes you look all the worse.

But that that is not you posted at all. Your maleable grasp on reality keeps bending.
In post 5607 you said Jebson could not be right about the process.
In post 8960 you used Jebson's e-mail to support your statement. You did not state then that the process was changed for WTC1 untill this post to try to cover up your lies and mistakes.

An honest man admitts his mistakes Chris.
You are just a pathetic liar.
 
Christophera said:
Correction, no one would say anything about it. I've met a number of people who know there was a concrete core.
Click to expand...

Are you sure these people actually exist. I mean you still can't prove that your documentary actually existed. You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Your picture with the arrow pointing to a dust cloud seems to support this.
 
Christophera said:
The forth floor of steel from the core base is where the steel was erected around the core. The constructon images have been filtered to remove the images of the core.
Click to expand...

Hey chris I thought you said that you knew how to interpret pictures.
If you notice in the picture below That is the sub-basment structure. Notice the "bathtub" or retaining wall in the back? You can even see the subway tube to the right of the structure. This structure is actually below ground level.
Are you going to whip out your fictitious documentary to come up with another lie to explain this mistake away?
 
uruk said:
Are you sure these people actually exist. I mean you still can't prove that your documentary actually existed. You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Your picture with the arrow pointing to a dust cloud seems to support this.
Click to expand...

So these people are scared for their lives and those of their families if they dare to breathe a word of the heretical concrete core. However, they're more than happy to tell Chris, who blabs it all over the web and even hosts a website preaching this dangerous knowledge.

What a man! What courage! What disregard for his own personal safety in his crusade for freedom, justice, truth and the American way!

What a prat!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom