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

[Christophera]

Chris...play nice...

Little jonny must learn to read at some point mom. We can't indulge him forever you know. It is in his own best interest that he learn to apply himself.

Stay late and study this Jonny,

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

 

[ktesibios]

Well, at least I've brought away something vaguely useful from this thread.

On some other thread here (or possibly over at the BAUT forum; CTer posts all look the same after a while), some CTer made the claim that the WTC towers had a 2000% factor of safety in their design.

Reading that Engineering News-Record article, I think I see where that came from: someone who saw the figure 2000% and didn't comprehend the difference between live load and the total load the struture had to support.

BTW, when thread gets to 10,000 posts, can we have a party? Or should we make it 250 or even, FSM forfend, 300 pages?

 

[Christophera]

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?

The core base starts below ground.

 

[Christophera]

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.

This image which shows the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" has a concrete core underneath the top floor. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core shows the core that was inside the building photographed.

And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that core is if it is not concrete!

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.

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense.[/QUOTE]

Stop trying to weasal onto of providing an image of some of the supposed 47 steel core columns from the demo images which show the steel columns inthe core area. By not producing this image you are unreasonably supporting what must be a lie. Alie that hides the murderers of 3,000 innocent people.

We know that evidence was taken from the scene and destroyed. we know private investigations were blocked, we know that FEMA never had the original blueprints.

http://www.gulufuture.com/future/knights_z.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

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

I just adequately addressed what you wish to term a mistake. You mistinterpreted what I said. Not the first time, ....... right?

"four floors from the base of the core" I didn't say ground level.

 

[Christophera]

Well, at least I've brought away something vaguely useful from this thread.

On some other thread here (or possibly over at the BAUT forum; CTer posts all look the same after a while), some CTer made the claim that the WTC towers had a 2000% factor of safety in their design.

Reading that Engineering News-Record article, I think I see where that came from: someone who saw the figure 2000% and didn't comprehend the difference between live load and the total load the struture had to support.

BTW, when thread gets to 10,000 posts, can we have a party? Or should we make it 250 or even, FSM forfend, 300 pages?

Darat has offered free personalized forum T-shirts to all posters that post reasonably using raw evidence of images from the demolition at the 10k post mark.

(Now that is a lie).

 

[uruk]

The core base starts below ground.

you posted this:

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.

Which floors were you refering to in the picture? You do know that that whole structure in the picture is below ground level. (except for the crane towers)

 

[uruk]

This image which shows the "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" has a concrete core underneath the top floor. This image of the WTC 2 concrete core shows the core that was inside the building photographed.

The first photo shows no concrete core. It shows steel columns. According to Jebson the concrete core was build ahead of the steel work. You agreed with Jebson in post 8960. I guess this means you can't find a picture of the concrete core being built ahead of the steel.

It is not clear what is in the second picture. The object is too obscured to be sure what it is.

And, no one has ever produced a reasonable explanation for what that core is if it is not concrete!

Yep there is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2167252&postcount=9693

Yes teh concrete core went up before the steel on WTC 1, then the steel went up first on WTC 2, which makes more sense.

So you were wrong in post 5607?
And you can't find any pictures of the concrete core for WTC1 even though constructions photos of WTC1 show no concrete core what so ever.

Stop trying to weasal onto of providing an image of some of the supposed 47 steel core columns from the demo images which show the steel columns inthe core area. By not producing this image you are unreasonably supporting what must be a lie. Alie that hides the murderers of 3,000 innocent people.

I have shown you pictures of the core columns. other people have shown you pictures of core columns. You posted one right in the post I am repling to. I even posted this article concerning the core columns:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2170080&postcount=9805

We know that evidence was taken from the scene and destroyed. we know private investigations were blocked, we know that FEMA never had the original blueprints.

http://www.gulufuture.com/future/knights_z.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Interesting I guess that was because NIST had the plans. Look at he report. I even pointed out the pages. It's not my fault if you refuse to look.
So you can't say I didn't show you.:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2161350&postcount=9414

I just adequately addressed what you wish to term a mistake. You mistinterpreted what I said. Not the first time, ....... right?

"four floors from the base of the core" I didn't say ground level.

No you haven't, although you did admit to being wrong in post #5607. Sorta. Your still just dancing and obfuscationg. It is just one of the MANY mistakes and misinterpretations you've made in this thread.

Weren't you refering to the picture posted? The whole structure in the picture is below ground level and it shows no concrete core at all.

Continue to hand wave, obfuscate and dance all you want. But I'm not going to let you go on this Chris.

 

[hcmom]

Darat has offered free personalized forum T-shirts to all posters that post reasonably using raw evidence of images from the demolition at the 10k post mark.

(Now that is a lie).

(But funny!)

 

[Christophera]

The first photo shows no concrete core. It shows steel columns. According to Jebson the concrete core was build ahead of the steel work. You agreed with Jebson in post 8960. I guess this means you can't find a picture of the concrete core being built ahead of the steel.

It is not clear what is in the second picture. The object is too obscured to be sure what it is.


Yep there is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2167252&postcount=9693



So you were wrong in post 5607?
And you can't find any pictures of the concrete core for WTC1 even though constructions photos of WTC1 show no concrete core what so ever.


I have shown you pictures of the core columns. other people have shown you pictures of core columns. You posted one right in the post I am repling to. I even posted this article concerning the core columns:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2170080&postcount=9805


Interesting I guess that was because NIST had the plans. Look at he report. I even pointed out the pages. It's not my fault if you refuse to look.
So you can't say I didn't show you.:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2161350&postcount=9414




No you haven't, although you did admit to being wrong in post #5607. Sorta. Your still just dancing and obfuscationg. It is just one of the MANY mistakes and misinterpretations you've made in this thread.

Weren't you refering to the picture posted? The whole structure in the picture is below ground level and it shows no concrete core at all.

Continue to hand wave, obfuscate and dance all you want. But I'm not going to let you go on this Chris.

What you mean is that you would LOVE to change the subject which is itself obsufucation. I made MY point more than adquately 10 pages back.

The WTC 2 concrete core standing (and no one has ever reasonably shown it to be anything else) completely agrees with Jebsons usenet post no matter what he saw or could not see.​

It is logical that he could not see the core which was 35 feet in from the edge of the floor minimum and 5 floors up. He could't know. We know from aerials that the core is not being built ahead of the exterior steel and the image above shows the core stripped of all floors as well as structural steel. NO CORE COLUMNS PROTRUDING FROM THE CORE AREA.

Trying to pretend that the fact of that image of the concrete core is not adequate is absurd. He talks about 4 floors of concrete and I show 40 floors of concrete. AND, I show the concrete goes all the way to the top with the image of the core of the top of tower 2 falling onto WTC 3.

 

[Christophera]

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.

One picture is worth a thousand words. I saw many stills and film clips, all narrated. It could take 15 hours to write a description of what I watched in one hour.

How about "mega-secret coating"?

 

[hcmom]

How about "mega-secret coating"?

Twice in one night!

 

[Christophera]

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:

There was actually a few minutes where the tendency to call the "interior box columns" "core columns" was addressed and indentified.

It started with Robertsons original design which he (I do believe it was him) identifies in his April 1, 2006 post at physorg.com.

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

I do not remember if Robertson was interviewed but I do remember that various employees were and that the tendency they had to refer to the "interior box columns" as core columns caused confusion which the videographers had to deal with and so included a reminder or notaton of it in the documentary specifically explaining that the columns that existed were not core columns or inside the core area but surrounded the core. They did not imply that this diminished their role, strength of size by ay means, they were indeed massive and there were many shots of them at various levels and phases of construction.

 

[Bell]

Special plastic coating on the rebar that goes BOOM.

Very secret.

Chris, remember...

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

... got some?

 

[Bell]

One picture is worth a thousand words. I saw many stills and film clips, all narrated. It could take 15 hours to write a description of what I watched in one hour.

Well, with all the info you claim it contained, the documentary should have taken 15 hours.

How about "mega-secret coating"?

How about:

We will be sticking with the AVAILABLE evidence.

 

[Wizard]

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.

Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center

IS THIS FOR REAL?????

I have heard Robertson saying that explosives were not used

 

[Bell]

IS THIS FOR REAL?????

I have heard Robertson saying that explosives were not used

You might want to take a look at the date that message was posted. But Chris lacks critical thinking, hence he thinks it's real indeed.

 

[Wizard]

You might want to take a look at the date that message was posted. But Chris lacks critical thinking, hence he thinks it's real indeed.

It was posted in April this year. Did Leslie Robertson say this or not?

 

[Wizard]

Ah April fools day!!!!!! I didn't spot that even after looking several times lol

 

[Big Al]

How about "mega-secret coating"?

So secret that the documentary crew were told all about it, including how it necessitated special welders with security clearance, how weather made some of it lose its "potency", about how it was stored in special containers....

Wow! That's pretty damned secret!

 

[Architect]

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.

I see you've not responded to this yet, Chris. Any particular reason?