• 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.
uruk said:
Are you going to whip out your fictitious documentary to come up with another lie to explain this mistake away?
Click to expand...

This documentary must have been about 15 hours long, after spending so long detailing every last nugget of information about the rebar and its mega-special coating.
 
Hey Chris, Here is an article dated July 8th, 1965 concerning the design of the steel columns and how they will take the wind loads.

Excerpts taken from:
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
The full articles can read at the above address provided

July 8, 1965

HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS

"For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.

A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.

The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.

The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124)."

"Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses."

"Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section."

"Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above."
Click to expand...
Notice, Chris, the section I bolded.
Here are a couple of pictures that went with the article:
 

Attachments

  • column-design.jpg
    column-design.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 9
  • column-design-2.jpg
    column-design-2.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
uruk said:
Hey Chris, Here is an article dated July 8th, 1965 concerning the design of the steel columns and how they will take the wind loads.

Excerpts taken from:
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
The full articles can read at the above address provided


Notice, Chris, the section I bolded.
Here are a couple of pictures that went with the article:
Click to expand...

Sorry, uruk, but you know and I know those reports aren't true. The Guardian is in on the conspiracy. As Chris will soon remember, The Documentary spent approximately three hours detailing all the false reports generated about steel cores, and how a foreman mysteriously told the director:

"Ask no awkward questions and nothing need ever happen to you and your family, consisting of your lovely wife, Gemma, 25, and your adorable children, Michael, aged 3, and Melanie, aged 2.

"Oh, by the way, these pictures show the massive explosion-resistant locker where we stored the mysterious, pale, squishy coating for the 3" rebar which we placed on 48" centres" for optimal blast... I mean protective effect.

"Damn, I knew I shouldn't have drunk at lunchtime. Just forget I showed you any of these. It's a steel core, OK?"

Fortunately, the director was a trusting soul, and he didn't see anything odd about it. He said as much in the documentary.
 
Hey Chris. Consider these photos of the Comcast building construction.

The Comcast building is being made with a concrete core. Notice how the concrete core soars over the steel work. Also notice how the photos taken at street level can clearly see the concrete core abouve 9 and 13 floors of the steel work.

Your explination of the lie and mistake you made about the Jebson e-mail is crap. Try to make another lie. You can even use the fictitious documentary again if want.
Or try being a man and admit that you are wrong.

a tip o' the hat to kookbreaker for posting the photographs
 

Attachments

  • ComcastTower1.jpg
    ComcastTower1.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 3
  • ComcastTower2.jpg
    ComcastTower2.jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
uruk said:
Or try being a man and admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

But... but.... massive box columns... rebar... 4' centers... box columns... centers...

No, wait, the WTC towers were so special that no other photos from other buildings apply. They invented new techniques for them, then never used those techniques again, ever. That's it.

All those pictures we posted from the tower construction showing steel columns are just showing elevator guide rails that for some reason are bigger than elevator guide rails. Also, there was concrete in there somewhere. Somehow.

Take note, the Freedom Tower is going to be built with a concrete core. Don't let them erase your mind and tell you it's a steel core in 20 years. Documentary! PBS! CONCRETE CORE!
 
uruk said:
Hey Chris. Consider these photos of the Comcast building construction.

The Comcast building is being made with a concrete core. Notice how the concrete core soars over the steel work. Also notice how the photos taken at street level can clearly see the concrete core abouve 9 and 13 floors of the steel work.

Your explination of the lie and mistake you made about the Jebson e-mail is crap. Try to make another lie. You can even use the fictitious documentary again if want.
Or try being a man and admit that you are wrong.

a tip o' the hat to kookbreaker for posting the photographs
Click to expand...

Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.


Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.
 
Christophera said:
Smaller concrete cores are cast ahead of the steel so their strength can add to the tower which reduces the towers weight.

The WTC concrete core was probably about twice the size. Casting the concrete inside the steel saves forming costs.


Try being a HUMAN and admit you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

That was a pretty lame tap dance Chris.
It doesn't matter the size of the building. Jebson could have seen a concrete core from street level if there was a concrete core. The pictures of the Comcast building prove it. Which means that the explination you gave me about the error you made concerning the Jebson e-mail is solid crap.
Besides in post 8960 you said that WTC1 was built with the concrete core going up first.

Try again Chris. You're not weasling out of it. Own up to it or be labeled the liar we all know that you are.

Oh and while you're at it. try to explain the mistake you made in misinterpreting the picture of WTC1's sub basment structure.
Just incase you missed it, here it is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2170012&postcount=9799
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM.

Very secret.
Click to expand...

For absolutely no reason. "Hey, Yamasaki-san, mind if we line your masterpiece with explosives, just in case we feel like blowing it up, say, thirty years from now?"

"Dozo, Injiniiru-san!"

Plain and utter nonsense, and you haven't given the ghost of a valid reason why they might have done it.
 
tacodaemon said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's called the art of B.S. In which Chris has a masters degree in.
 
Big Al said:
Plain and utter nonsense, and you haven't given the ghost of a valid reason why they might have done it.
Click to expand...

But the documentary!

Come to think of it, even if there was a concrete core (which there wasn't), and even if he saw a documentary that mentioned a special rebar coating (which I don't think he did), that doesn't really prove anything.

Chris, a couple more questions:

  1. If this "documentary" specifically mentioned plastic explosives, or you figured it out back then, why didn't you say anything?
  2. If it just called it a "special coating" then what additional proof do you have that it was indeed plastic explosives?
I'm sure you'll say something about how it's obviously controlled demolition, but then we come back to the issue of your experience. You are not qualified, based on what you've told us, to evaluate such a complex event. All of the people who are qualified have failed to agree with the controlled demolition theory. They have, in fact, explicitly stated that it was not a controlled demolition.

Do you see where this is going? You need to provide some additional evidence, or you're just arguing in circles that lead back to "I believe this to be true, so it is".

Your precious photos won't help you here, because even you can only claim they show a concrete core. But what if there was a core and it happened to sustain enough damage to collapse on its own. You need to provide proof that this didn't happen.

Even if there was a core with specially coated rebar, you still need proof that the collapse was a controlled demolition and that the coating was explosive. This is where your decades of experience as a demolitions expert or structural engineer come into play...

...you do have decades of experience as a demolitions expert or structural engineer, right?

Are you beginning to see the level of proof that we require here? Not only do you need to establish your core thesis (which, by the way, you haven't), but then you'll need to prove that it had a rebar coating, that the coating was explosive, that the explosive was indeed detonated, and that the whole thing was a controlled demolition. Then you'll need to prove that it was indeed the government behind it all.

You're embarking on a journey up Mount Everest, and you're not even in country yet.
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

I downloaded your image and doubled, then quadrupled, it in size. This reinforced my belief that there the image does not show a wall. There clearly is no upper boundary and the colors in the "wall" area are the same as the surrounding smoke/dust cloud.


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.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether 1 or 2 photographers took the photos, the object's size seems to be about the same relative to other features in the photos, so your claim that the 1st photo is of "interior box columns" and the second is of rebar is VERY unlikely.
 
JonnyFive said:
Even if there was a core with specially coated rebar, you still need proof that the collapse was a controlled demolition and that the coating was explosive.
Click to expand...

And, since the documentary supposedly aired in 1990, 19 years after the towers were completed, why did the documentary advisers even have to mention the special coating, let alone go on and on about it? They could have shown the documentary crew any old pictures they wanted, including "fake" steel core ones, but they had to go and show them absolute, undeniable, unimpeachable evidence that:

a) Not only was the core made of concrete, contrary to the cover story they'd so cunningly fostered, but,
b) That the now-utterly-invisible rebar had this mysterious coating, and they kept returning to it.

That teensy little anomaly hasn't even been addressed yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom