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

[Gamolon]

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Another piece of "ghost" evidence to go along with your "ghostumentary".

You still haven't answered my previous post. How come you don't hold yourself to the same standards of producing evidence?

So far, in the past few days, you have:

1. Misinterpreted some photos
2. Cited a documentary that doesn't exist
3. Cited a website that doesn't exist
4. Used evidence to make your own point then later claim that "they're in on it"
5. First claim that the elevators were only accessible from INSIDE the core and then backpedal to say you really don't know.

Nice track record over a few days.

You're on an island all by yourself. Nobody believes you, not even other CTers.

You're terrible at research and really can't get your point across to anyone. THAT should be proof enough that your theory holds no water.

As far as I'm concerned, you can go suck farts out of a bus seat.

You aren't worth any more of my time.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[firecoins]

However, because of the issue brought up by Gamolon, I really would like to know, if the elevators were inside the (non)concrete core, what happens to them (and the people inside) when the core is only 2-foot by 2-foot.

Seems this has never been more apt:
Or this:

I was in those elevators several times. I weigh 220lbs. I had no problem fitting inside.

 

[firecoins]

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Since I linked to the University of north Carolina, they have removed their page that talked about the concrete core.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

Apparently you have no concern for lawful government, fo rthe US Constitution and our rights and freedoms and are all about enabling evasion.

I am not the only one held to standards of accountability in the eyes of the impartial viewer. The invisisteel column group has utterly failed to support that thing they hardly ever mention.

What we hear mostly is "no concrete". Reasonably, the towers did have a core. If it wasn't concrete, then show us the steel columns from images of raw evidence from the towers demise.

You are a disinformation agent for the Bush administration! You have yet to show 1 picture of a concrete core or the C4 you claim exists there. You are to distract JREF from uncovering the real conspiracy here and the is that the truth movement exits to overthrow the US government and turn into a Stalinist/Hitler-Nazi/Communist Jewish regime.

 

[Oliver]

And there was another guy that tried it and hit concrete. They were both using squeegees.

Please stop being so ignorant while i'm honest to you, Chris.

Explain to me why these trapped guys in the elevator on the
50th floor were able to escape by digging thru "concrete".

Liars???

 

[Arus808]

Get real, you have not explained free fall (near is close enough to use that term} and you haven't shown with images of raw evidence that the structure you (fail) claim existed, which by the way, cannot possibly do what what was seen on 9-11.

since the buldings didn't fall at or even near free fall speed. Present your calculations please.

Oxford is in on the coverup.

Here you are shown to be a liar. THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS of libraries would need ot have been raided across 6 continents to remove reference of such book that is published by an organization BASED IN ENGLAND. you obviously have never done any type of research in a libary because there's these books called periodicals. You know what are in periodicals. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF LISTINGS of every publication ever made since the first publication hit a library. They consist of listings of magazines, newspapers, books, reference, media (including TAPES, audio/visual) and a summary of what each these items contain therein. NOt only would these "black ops' have to remove your imaginary book, they'd have to REMOVE the years upon years of periodicals in the many languages that REFERENCE This imaginary book since it was "published".

So now you're saying that the ENTIRE country of England, and the entire continent of Asia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South and North America, are responsible for stealing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of books to Hide the fact that one book "published" said that the wtc towers had a concrete core? Despite books published before your imaginary Oxford book, say they didn't?

This is why you need help Chris...Please, seek it

 

[Jennie C.]

Not sure exactly what your question is as there is nthing 2 x 2 involved.

and then to Gamolon:

It seems as though your axis directions are reversed or lacking. Let me clarify.

The walls along the long axis were 12 foot thick

The walls along the short axis were 17 foot thick.

Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top.

"Both tapered to 2 foot thick at the top" means the core was 2' x 2' at the top. So what happens to the people in the elevators?

 

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry to barge in on this thread, which I haven't read in a long while, but is this the documentary Christophera has been babbling about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUU-_toZooE

 

[Big Al]

Afraid not, Pardalis. It doesn't mention the concrete core or the 3" rebar on 4' centres or the special rebar coating or the security-cleared welders or the clearing of the floors when casting or the rebar being kept in secure lockers or...

I'm sorry, I'm out of breath! No, I remember seeing that documentary, but it mentions specifically the steel core, so it just has to be a fake, doesn't it?

 

[Pardalis]

At the end of the Youtube first part they mention how they poured in concrete for the basement walls, before the excavation, and later on they mention concrete being used for the foundations, the concrete "footing".

Maybe our friend got a little confused.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Christophera delusion.

 

[firecoins]

Libby testified today he was ordered by Christophera to release the name of Judy Plame.

 

[Christophera]

You are a disinformation agent for the Bush administration! You have yet to show 1 picture of a concrete core or the C4 you claim exists there. You are to distract JREF from uncovering the real conspiracy here and the is that the truth movement exits to overthrow the US government and turn into a Stalinist/Hitler-Nazi/Communist Jewish regime.

A highly visual 500 foot vertical element of concrete has been before you. You do not want to see and continue to pretend that you have not. Not my problem.

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

The notion that that is steel core columns clogged with debri is nonsensical. Columns would be protruding under any conditions. There are none.

Again, the same type unwillingness to observe fairly simple events.

concrete core explosions

The notion that the above shows dust expelled by compressed air from pancaking floors is totally unsupported by any reason whatsoever. Observe the scale. Logically only high explosives can be responsible for that.

 

[uruk]

The notion that that is steel core columns clogged with debri is nonsensical. Columns would be protruding under any conditions. There are none.

Can you explain why that is so? I and others have shown you pictures of the steel columns with the sheetrock still attached to it as well as stairwells and other debris.
Do want to be embarrassed again? I can post those pictures as many times as you want.

 

[ingoa]

Cool...
This thread is probably longer the the Pricipia of Isaac Newton. Both items are about gravitation. One is a classic the other one is not.

Make a guess which is what...

 

[Big Al]

Concrete Core Of WTC 2

There you go again, Chris!

We've seen that same bloody picture SO MANY TIMES!

If I may remind you of what I said two days ago:

I ASKED FIRST... some time soon after this ludicrous CT popped up. So there!

Anyway, Chris will only answer either of these burning questions with:

a) MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS
b) Concrete Core Of WTC2
c) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
d) a link to his website.

So, Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????

I DO NOT SEE A REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE IN A CLOUD OF DUST/SMOKE, HOWEVER MANY TIMES YOU POST IT! I WORK AS THE Q.A. MANAGER IN A SMALL FACTORY IN THE SOUTH OF ENGLAND! I HAVE NEVER BEEN OFFERED EITHER A DEATH THREAT OR A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE C.I.A. OR ANYONE ELSE TO EITHER SHUT MY MOUTH OR SPOUT AN "OFFICIAL LINE". SPEAKING AS A FREE PERSON WITH THE RIGHT TO SPEAK MY MIND IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, I STATE FREELY THAT NONE OF YOUR BLURRY JPEGS IMPRESS ME. YOUR WHOLE STORY OF DEMOLITION PLANNED 30-35 YEARS AGO (PARTICULARLY USING EXPLOSIVES WITH AN OPTIMAL 10-YEAR LIFE) STRIKES ME AS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!

For me, this question is CRITICAL:

Chris: why would the US government plan 30 years ahead to destroy the WTC?????[

 

[DontAskMe]

there is a concrete core seen in that picture? where? today I have heard there isnt enough debris so a space weapon had to demolish the towers, now the core thing...

it is like arguing against someone who stands in the middle of the street at midnight and insists it is light outside

 

[Christophera]

Please stop being so ignorant while i'm honest to you, Chris.

Explain to me why these trapped guys in the elevator on the
50th floor were able to escape by digging thru "concrete".

Liars???

Not liars, just in an elevator is away from the concrete core wall. Most elevators and stairwells wer not against the core wall.

I answer it here very well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2323256#post2323256

 

[fezzic]

I would suggest that the alleged concrete core may actually be a building from the other side of the WTC complex. It is difficult to determine distance from the photo. The smoke and dust obscures details in the background (the sun glare doesn't help either). I suggest that a possible candidate for the alleged concrete core would be the Millenium Hotel, a 55 (or so) story structure to the east across Church Street from the complex.

I hardly think my suggestion is conclusive, merely plausible. I don't know if anyone has suggested this before (there are too many pages).

To provide a clearer picture (heh), we could use another image taken from about the same spot in about the same direction. (Anybody know of such a shot?) This will then allow identification of various buildings and give some location information about where they are in the image.

 

[Christophera]

I would suggest that the alleged concrete core may actually be a building from the other side of the WTC complex. It is difficult to determine distance from the photo. The smoke and dust obscures details in the background (the sun glare doesn't help either). I suggest that a possible candidate for the alleged concrete core would be the Millenium Hotel, a 55 (or so) story structure to the east across Church Street from the complex.

The first image is the concrete core of WTC 2

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

This is an image taken a second later which shows the same concrete core a little lower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcore2stands.gif

I hardly think my suggestion is conclusive, merely plausible. I don't know if anyone has suggested this before (there are too many pages).

Yes and that is what those who work to obscure information intend. Or the extra 8000 posts or so of nonsense, cat pictures and baking recipes

To provide a clearer picture (heh), we could use another image taken from about the same spot in about the same direction. (Anybody know of such a shot?) This will then allow identification of various buildings and give some location information about where they are in the image.

I've pretty much found all the applicable images.

 

[GlennB]

Here is some of the core of WTC1, after the outer wall/floor areas had fallen. No concrete Chris, just steel members ...

 

[Z]

fezzic, on this point Chris is right. Yes, there is a building at approx. the same location that looks similar; but the angle this photo was taken at is too low to see the building behind it, i.e. the view is looking upward, and the building would be far below the frame to be seen.

Given all available evidence - which consists of construction photographs, available diagrams, eyewitness reports, post-collapse photographs, film clips, and debris analysis - the greatest likelihood is that this is a portion of the lower interior of the building, with a large portion of debris atop it, and some debris on the sides, largely obscured by dust and smoke, suspended on film in mid-collapse. This is consistant with the way buildings collapse - that is, all the debris of the floors above wouldn't simply slip off the sides, a large quantity would likely mound atop whatever stood resistant during the collapse. Further, it is reasonable under a steel core scenario, as the steel supports lower in the building might have survived longer, but were being snapped off at the welds higher up by the extreme pressure of tons of falling debris. These beams weren't spears; they wouldn't have poked through the falling debris and remained upright.

There is a far less likely chance that this is the same thing, but with a concrete core instead. The same mounding of debris would occur, but the chance of this portion of the core collapsing would be vastly less. Further, the debris at the site contained far too little concrete or concrete dust to account for the amount of concrete which Chris believes would have been present. Also, since we know that plastic explosives only have an optimal shelf life of between 10-20 years, and since we know that such explosives exposed to the air, to heat from curing concrete and subsequent moisture, and further exposed to varying temperatures and air qualities since the construction would have a far shorter viable lifespan, we can properly surmise that the concrete was not destroyed by any built-in explosives. This leaves only post-construction demolition, an even less likely theory.

Nonetheless, that's basically what this chunk is - a piece of the collapsing core of the building, with mounds of debris atop it, and some debris choking the floors on the sides, all obscured by smoke and dust. Any discussion of this photograph in terms of steel vs. concrete would be reduced to what evidence existed of either. Chris is simply flat wrong in believing that the steel beams would be poking up in this picture above the fallen debris. He wrongly believes that welded steel becomes all but invincible, and that we basically have 47 1300-foot long adamant beams, where all the debris should have fallen neatly around, leaving a ghastly skeleton of empty steel erect.

Anyone who's ever seen a steel building collapse knows this isn't what happens.

Other than that, all he has are some memories of a documentary which doesn't exist, a clip from a non-existant book, some memories of a non-existant magazine article, and some day-laborer-level experience with construction and demolition, combined with some serious mental health issues, a junior-high-school level of education, an an April Fool's joke letter taken seriously.

So it all boils down to this: unless he can produce images of the concrete during construction, he's lost. PERIOD.