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

[Big Al]

I sense an Argument from Ignorance coming on: "You have absolutely no idea what the NSA is capable of!"

Neither, of course, does Chris, but that won't sway him.

 

[JimBenArm]

Those that ask questions of me.

You killed them?

 

[JonnyFive]

What the hell?!

Uruk, BV, Johnny... Belz...? Anyone?
Help me out here, I have no clue what Chris is getting at

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps he thinks we haven't read his page yet. Obviously if we had, we'd be totally convinced.

It's the same stuff he's posted on the forum, with the same arguments. Hallways in the core, massive box columns, elevator guide rails, etc. He doesn't seem to have modified it even slightly, despite things like being shown that those couldn't possibly have been elevator guide rails, or that the solid spaces in the "core at sunset" picture are too small to be any kind of supportive core.

Perhaps he feels you too are incapable of reading? Would you like to join the club, we have no t-shirts.

 

[Bell]

Okay, you cannot read.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Some in the UK still think the WTC tower core was built as shown below. Basically a pre-stressed concrete design. Yamasaki had reviewed the design, and found no contractor that could build a 1,300 foot column of that design. We all know the towers had their stairwells and elevators inside the core. There is no room for that in the core below.

the BBC core

So, a single solid concrete column then? Like I said in this post:

What? Wait! Is that picture claiming the towers had 1 solid concrete column in the middle? I have been misinterpreting it all the time... That's even more daft than your hollow concrete core.

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Wrong.

 

[Bell]

Chris, please also address this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173039&postcount=9903

And try to be clear in your writing this time, ol' chap.

 

[Bell]

BTW I'm still hypnotised to believe that the WTC had a steel core and that it was destroyed by a bunch of pissed off muslim hijackers. I guess there is no help for me.

Now, if only we could find out the magic word to snap us out of our hypnosis...

 

[Architect]

All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion

Amazing; it's just bollocks. You size the material - be it steel or concrete, wattle or brick, timber or stone - to provide the required strength. Is Chris trying to claim that the strength of steel against "torsion" (hahahah) is so low that it would be too big to put in the buildings or something?!?!?!?! Sheesh. The guy barely even ranks as an amateur.


Sorry, scratch the "barely" and add "doesn't"

 

[Christophera]

And you know this... how? And please don't just cite the disappearance of the disputed documentary and book, since we don't believe they existed in the first place.

How about answering the following questions:

1. Why would the Oxford University Press, a British academic institution agree to the total informational erasure of a book because of a single paragraph? Why not just reissue it to cite the approved story of a steel core?
2. Why has your website not been erased? It's far more extensive in its heresy than that single half-para in the purported Oxford book.
3. Why would the MIBs divulge to the PBS documentary crew so much damaging information?
4. How do you go about erasing every single trace of a book? Every website, every public library all over the world, every private collection, every Amazon.com warehouse, AbeBooks, Gardners, Bertrams, the Library of Congress... the list is HUGE!
5. And, above all, a question you've studiously avoided despite frequent repeats: WHY DID THE MIB LINE THE TWIN TOWERS WITH C4 IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIRTY YEARS BEFORE 9/11?

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

I have a specific interest in my web site and doing such would draw attention while it could be remounted on another server easily.

The MIB did not have anything to do with the active inquiry into the documents of the WTC by the videographers who had to use a FOIA to get some information.

Ever hear of a book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? 10,000 were printed in 1962. In 10 years of trying to find one person who has even seen it, I have not. Ever hear of "book burnings"? Why did they do that? Is there a modern equivilant? What does it look like?

The folks that invented the MIB have another group that has no uniform.

BTW, I noted that you conflated C4 and RDX, and stated that it was first available in the 1950s. This is nonsense.

RDX was discovered in the 1890s and first used as an explosive in the 1920s - it was used extensively in WWII. It was generally known in the U.S. as cyclonite.
C-4 (Composition 4) is derived from the solid RDX and first arrived in the 1960s. It is produced from an RDX slurry with oil and lecithin, Critically for your argument, because of its oily composition, it cannot be slurried in solvents without losing its plastic characteristics and denaturing.

Well, Big Al,

You've finally contributed something here. I had always assumed that C4 were the same. And they are, but not quite. What is interesting is that it appears there is at least 1 opportunity in the process to make a slurry which could coat an object.


]http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

The explosive material in C-4 is cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (C3H6N6O6), commonly called RDX (which stands for "royal demolition explosive" or "research development explosive")

 

[Christophera]

Amazing; it's just bollocks. You size the material - be it steel or concrete, wattle or brick, timber or stone - to provide the required strength. Is Chris trying to claim that the strength of steel against "torsion" (hahahah) is so low that it would be too big to put in the buildings or something?!?!?!?! Sheesh. The guy barely even ranks as an amateur.


Sorry, scratch the "barely" and add "doesn't"

I noticed you did not reference with any links.

I reference to a steel suspension bridge whipping around in 42 MPH wind

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

Do you realize the steel compresses 18 inches with the loads of 1300 feet? Fits between the concrete and the core were made but not fastened untill a certain number of floors had been completed in order to distribute the structure load to the concrete over successive series of fasteners and the associated compression.

 

[Big Al]

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

Between the U.S. goverment and military and British academia?

I have a specific interest in my web site and doing such would draw attention while it could be remounted on another server easily.

But they haven't erased it all as is?

The MIB did not have anything to do with the active inquiry into the documents of the WTC by the videographers who had to use a FOIA to get some information.

But, seemingly, they can delete any records at will, regardless of the FOIA! And the PBS documentary mentioned this problem, did it?

Ever hear of a book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? 10,000 were printed in 1962. In 10 years of trying to find one person who has even seen it, I have not. Ever hear of "book burnings"? Why did they do that? Is there a modern equivilant? What does it look like?

Result of a momentary Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 42,000 for "hundredth monkey". (0.37 seconds)

or try: http://www.amazon.com/Hundredth-Monkey-Ken-Keyes-Jr/dp/094202401X

They have 56 used and new available. Not quite in the same league as this purported Oxford University book, is it? Also, 10,000 books is nothing, nada, zip in the publishing world; if that's all they sold, I'm not surprised they ditched it. Disingenuous, Chris.

The folks that invented the MIB have another group that has no uniform.

Well, Big Al,

You've finally contributed something here. I had always assumed that C4 were the same. And they are, but not quite. What is interesting is that it appears there is at least 1 opportunity in the process to make a slurry which could coat an object.

Thanks for the condescension. So, we've switched from C-4 to RDX now, have we?

Slurrying is part of the process of making C-4, not moulding RDX. I don't know if slurried RDX would hold together if applied to round steel, anyway. RDX is not a plastic explosive.

 

[Christophera]

Chris, please also address this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173039&postcount=9903

And try to be clear in your writing this time, ol' chap.

Let me just add one little note to help you with this difficult logic.

A & B on the left point to concrete. On the right part of what we see is forms and cannot be sure of what is concrete.

Concrete
​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4462&stc=1&d=1165814495

In the left silhouette "A" is the entire center piece, in the right "A" is only the forms of the actual wall running perpendicular to the long axis core wall face we view. The outer forms of the core are not in place yet so we can see light along where the concrete will be.

"D" on the right is the right side of the center piece formed and "C" is the partially formed left side of the center piece.

In the left image "B "is the total left side of the core.

In the left image you can see that the center piece is missing which shows that the core was cast in pieces.

NOW,

Explain how these images show steel core columns.

 

[Christophera]

Between the U.S. goverment and military and British academia?

Perhaps you have not noted that there is good reason to believe that the US is still a British Colony in some ways.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

But, seemingly, they can delete any records at will, regardless of the FOIA! And the PBS documentary mentioned this problem, did it?

Yes, they mentioned that they could not get the original plans for the core.

Result of a momentary Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 42,000 for "hundredth monkey". (0.37 seconds)

or try: http://www.amazon.com/Hundredth-Monkey-Ken-Keyes-Jr/dp/094202401X

They have 56 used and new available. Not quite in the same league as this purported Oxford University book, is it? Also, 10,000 books is nothing, nada, zip in the publishing world; if that's all they sold, I'm not surprised they ditched it. Disingenuous, Chris.

Wrong book. Keyes book was about the first book and he was too high on LSD to remember the main points.

Thanks for the condescension. So, we've switched from C-4 to RDX now, have we?

Slurrying is part of the process of making C-4, not moulding RDX. I don't know if slurried RDX would hold together if applied to round steel, anyway. RDX is not a plastic explosive.

You are welcome, you've earned it.

From what you posted oil or lecitin could be used to solvent the C4 although it is implied that other solvents may be used. Versatile stuff.

 

[JonnyFive]

Wrong book. Keyes book was about the first book and he was too high on LSD to remember the main points.

Evidence, please.

 

[uruk]

homer,

You missed the point several times.

No I didn't. Your trying to avoid owing up to several error and mistakes As well as outright lies and deception.

1.)You cannot explain what the solid object in the WTC 2 core photo is. No one can unless they call it a steel reinforced concrete core. The fact is suppported by a number of other pieces of raw information as well as the reports of Ph.d's

Yes I can. That photo you keep trotting out is more than likely wallboard and sheetrock still attached to the remaining steel comuns. I have even backed it up with pictures of sheetrock still attached to steel columns. You cant show us one sing picture of a concrete wall.
So stop trying to redirect and address your error and lies.
Be a man for once Chris.
Your "ph.D" paper was already admitted to being in error. As are your other sources.

2.)The above deficiency in what is said in 1.) above escapes you so you assume that the comcast tower was how the Twin towers were constructed, which in your mind makes Jebson correct, but the aerial images of the towers do not show the concrete, so Jebson was wrong about the concrete being constructed above the steel, at least from the 4th floor up.

This statement shows how little you understand what I am saying (or what little you understand of anything in this thread). It even shows how you backpedal in your claims and statements.
I am saying that both you AND Jebson are wrong. In post #5607 You said that Jebson was wrong about his account of the construction. I proved to you that Jebson could see a concrete tower if there had been a concrete tower. The Comcast pictures showed that the core could have been seen from ground level if they had existed. You said he couldn't. Which meant you were mistaken in post 5607.

But in post 8960 you retracted and said that Jebson was right about the concrete going up first in WTC1. The pictures posted by several people here showed that to be false also.
You will never find a picture of a concrete core in the WTC towers because they never had concrete cores. EVER!

The construction photos do not show steel core columns because steel core columns are strong enough to survive and be seen in the demo photos. None are seen meaning they didn't exist.

You have been shown pictures of the core columns both in construction photos and Ground Zero photos. You keep mislabeling them "elevator rail guides" even though you've shown us no proof that they are "elevator rail guides". There is even video posted showing the core columns falling over. But you refuse to acknowledge it. Don't blame us for your intellectual dishonesty.

if you ignore critical information as you do, because you are not interested in the truth, you have an agenda to prove something no matter what, meaning you are not going to be able to use the evidence properly. I would prefer that our government not be infiltated and thatthe towers were not demolished, but this is not the case. I can face it, you cannot.

Again you exhibit that peculiar habit of accusing others of that which you are guilty of yourself. I guess it pathalogical that you can't see it. Perhapse your ego won't let you.

I have no agenda. I am not out to prove anything. You are the one who has an agenda. You are the one who's trying to prove something at all costs. Otherwise, why are you posting in this forum? Why do you have a website devoted to your hypothesis?

All I am asking that you back up your assertions. Prove to me what you say is true. And I challenge that proof if I am not convinced by it or if I think it may be in error. If it is truth, it will hold up to the acid tests.

But so far your evidence has been lacking.
If your going to convince someone of your concrete core, your going to have to present more than just a picture of a dark indeterminate shape and an arrow pointing to a dust cloud. Your evidence is dodgy and fraught with error, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and outright lie and invention.

You just don't have enough evidence for the steel core columns to make your point rationally,

Just about everybody here has posted websites, reports, pictures, and videos of the steel core columns. Your intellectual dishonesty is not our fault or our problem.
It is you that has so much emotion and self worth tied up in this belief that you can not see beyond it. Your ego and self image will not allow you to even consider the possibility that you may be mistaken.
You need for the world to have an all powerful conspriacy and cabal to be the scapegoat for all the shortcomings and failures in your life.
Well Chris, sometimes crap just happens and you gotta pick up the pieces and keep going and quit blaming other people for your own shortcomings.

 

[uruk]

Navy seals developed the coated rebar in concrete casting technique in the early 1960's.

Proof?

 

[uruk]

We really think that because things are written down that it means something like they are secure for all time. We have another think coming.

Well once something has been printed And published into several hundred or thousand copies. It tends to make it hard for the Evil Conspiratorial Cabal to go around hunting down thousands of books in people's houses or libraries and change or destroy them. Or are saying that exactly what they are doing?
If so How?

 

[JonnyFive]

Proof?

Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[Architect]

I noticed you did not reference with any links.

That's because it's ruddy obvious.

If you're silly enough to trying laying out (say) 50x25mm softwood timber floor joists at 900mm centres over a 3m span and they fail, it's not an indication that timber is crap for floors! It's a sign you should have used 150x50mm timbers at 450mm centres.

I reference to a steel suspension bridge whipping around in 42 MPH wind

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=tacoma+narrows+bridge&hl=en

I've warned you before that all of us who do structures do study the Tacoma Narrows bridge, haven't I?

The issue is not material, but rather a combination of weight (intertia, resistance to wind loads, etc.), rigidity of the box girders you see below carriageway level (phot attached), and deck width (eddies, etc. are created and narrow bridges are quite susceptible).

Notwithstanding the earlier invention of the Dredge Bridge (look it up) and small suspension bridges, large span units were poorly understood at first and Tacoma is just an example of getting it wrong.

Today we can name loads of steel suspension bridges including (but not exclusively):

Forth Road Bridge, Scotland
Severn Crossing (the old one), England
Dartford Crossing, England
Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco

Do you realize the steel compresses 18 inches with the loads of 1300 feet? Fits between the concrete and the core were made but not fastened untill a certain number of floors had been completed in order to distribute the structure load to the concrete over successive series of fasteners and the associated compression.

Bollocks. There are numerous steel framed skyscrapers across the world including:

Bank of China, Hong Kong
Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Hong Kong
Sears Tower, Chicago
Citicorp (now Citigroup) Building, New York
Hancock Building, Chicago (or is it New York? Ah what the hell)

You just can't deal in reality, can you Chirs?

 

[uruk]

There are very tight alignments between government, the military and academia, in case you havn't noticed. We've been allowed to think that OUR informationis a priority, it is not. The secret control of informtion IS the priority and always has been.

Your not getting it Chris. Oxford University is not in the United States. It is in England.
Why would a British university be complicit to an American cover up?

 

[Architect]

Perhaps you have not noted that there is good reason to believe that the US is still a British Colony in some ways.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

Hey, great....we run America. Where's my share of the loot?


But come on Chris, you're bein funny surely. Are you really trying to claim that we do still run the US at some level? I'm sure you would have noticed!

And do you really believe a web site which refers to "England" at a time when that political entity no longer existed? That a percentage of your taxes goes straight to the UK? And no-one has ever blabbed?

Come on!