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

[Z]

How about ANY construction image?

Because unless you can show us a construction image showing the concrete core, you have nothing. You've LOST. PERIOD.

 

[Christophera]

Below you state the exact opposite of what happened. Here is the post that proves it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2155211#post2155211

I believe you were the one who was mistaken about there being no cross connected support beams between the core columns. You couldn't even tell the difference between the core columns and the crane towers.

Close examination will show the diagonal bracing to be inside the interior box columns rather than a part of them. Making the trusses and diagonals part of the crane platform. The image you annnotated there shows this as fact.

More redirection and obfuscation. still trying to change the subject again Chris?

I've clearly shown that obfuscation is what you are attempting.

 

[uruk]

So typical that you refuse to acknowledge the image that does show the taper on the right side of WTC 1 in the image of the below linked post and only choose to acknowledge which does not show the taper.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2343673#post2343673

Chris, You're blind. That core does not taper.
If the supposed concrete core tapers from the base to the top. You should see a gradual angle. All you see is parallel lines.

 

[uruk]

This is a very curious post because besides the silhouette image I've not posted any construction image. You should define exactly which image you refer to.

Chris, did you notice the cranes in the image you posted above?

 

[uruk]

Close examination will show the diagonal bracing to be inside the interior box columns rather than a part of them. Making the trusses and diagonals part of the crane platform. The image you annnotated there shows this as fact.



I've clearly shown that obfuscation is what you are attempting.

Chris, look at the posts previous to the one your refering to to see your mistakes.

Quit jumping around and stick to the subject.

 

[Jennie C.]

This from uruk (I assume Uruk Hai, at least

Speaking of changing the subject.

Chris Why have you not responded to this post?

Originally Posted by Christophera

You forgot to consider, and I assumed you knew, that the 17 & 12 foot walls are in addition to the 80 x 120 foot inside dimensions of the steel reinforced cast concrete tube of the core. That would make the core OD at 104 feet narrow side. Long axis 154 feet OD.

Oh yes, your subject change.

Umm, my subject change, prompted by a query from Gamolon (tip-of-hat)

To stick with the subject, the core tapers.

There goes that core tapering again. And the elevator passengers squeeze ever closer. Again.

Kudos to Gamolon, who started this whole tapering core thing about the elevators. Because he was right.

Edited: I always seem to need to play with the formatting. Making even a spreadsheet look pretty is always harder than to do the data and formulae.

 

[uruk]

This from uruk (I assume Uruk Hai, at least

Hi.
Actually It's Uruk, the babylonian city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk
Why? A very obscure Star Trek TNG refrence.
I'm a nerd. What can I say.

There goes that core tapering again. And the elevator passengers squeeze ever closer. Again.

Kudos to Gamolon, who started this whole tapering core thing about the elevators. Because he was right.

Edited: I always seem to need to play with the formatting. Making even a spreadsheet look pretty is always harder than to do the data and formulae.

I think he means that the core wall thickness tapers not the core itself. (at least I hope that what he's saying. You never know with Chris)

 

[Christophera]

homer has no evidence, again and again

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

That picture does not prove a concrete core. The object is too obscured by dust and smoke to make any kind of positive identification. One can assume that it is the core structure, but there is no detail.

If that were the only picture, and if we did not have to explain near free fall, if you had images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area at elevations above the ground your objection might be reasonable, since you do not have images of stel core columns from the towers demise, since we do have to explain near free fall, since we do have more images, your objection is NOT reasonable.

Here is the end view of the concrete shear wall of the core.

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

And I 've explained before; I have shown you pictures (in this thread) of the core reminant where the sheetrock was still attached to the steel columns.

If there were no explosives, large quantities of sheetrock could still remain attached to the core area. And sheet rock can have the rounded appearance you keep pointing out.
If you want I can post those pictures again.

Will those pictures show the steel core columns in the core area at elevations above ground? No, they show interior box columns or elevator guide rail support steel and drywall.

This image should show steel core columns if they existed. It does not. What it does show can only be rebar.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Never has an adequate explanation for what those fine vertical elements are, IF they are not rebar.

Of course you repeat your erroneous assertion. That is the only possible way it can exist in any form and your agenda is "no concrete", not the truth.

I have no agenda Chris. I'm just going by what I've read in the NIST report and what I've reasearched on the web in the process of debating with you.
You are the one with the agenda. You are the one who came to this forum claiming that the WTC Towers had a concrete core and that the government is lieing. You are the one with the websites and the court cases. You are the one who is actively promoting an agenda. I do not have websites. I'm just pointing out your errors and misconceptions and debating with you.
Do see the difference Chris?

You cannot debate me because you do not have the experience with steel and concrete to distinguish between them. You also do not have the integrity to conduct fact finding that is required. Your agenda is supporting the NIST report and you have no evidence to do so with so you just say NO to anything which counters the NIST report.

Yes, I have an agenda, but it is focused on the truth and it does so through my websites and various message boards where I use EVIDENCE. You have no evidence for anything.

You haven't even bothered to explain (NIST doesn't) how the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns fall at free fall and disapear from all the 9-11 images.

You haven't because steel like what you say existed cannot be cut within what was seen on 9-11 to fall freely or disapear from images.

 

[Christophera]

Chris, did you notice the cranes in the image you posted above?

Haaaaaaaaa ha, that was your image or someone elses erroneously annotated that I reposted.

Here's another one.

The reason those diagonals are never seen in the 9-11 images of the steel structure is that they are not a part of the tower. They are a part of the crane platform. But homer did not know that until he posted the erroneously interpreted construction image and I corrected him.

All interpretation of construction images must be consistent with 9-11 images in order to be verified.

 

[RickGonja]

Run Away

Wow! This thread is still going. Just let Chris be. Its not worth the effort.

 

[uruk]

[Christophera;2345643]

Concrete Core Of WTC 2​

You want to call the above a dust cloud because it disproves your invisisteel did not exist, and since there was a core, it proves it was concrete.

Chris, Chris, Chris. You are showing your dishonesty or incapability to understand.
I did not say that picture was of a dust cloud. I said the object was obscured by a the dust and smoke.
Quit lieing. It's not helping your case.
I said the if the object is the core it could just as well be the steel columns with the sheet rock and other structures still attached. But because of the dust and smoke, you can't tell for sure what it is.

If that were the only picture, and if we did not have to explain near free fall, if you had images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area at elevations above the ground your objection might be reasonable, since you do not have images of stel core columns from the towers demise, since we do have to explain near free fall, since we do have more images, your objection is NOT reasonable.

Only that this thread is filled with pictures of the steel core during construction and after the collapse.
The facts are there , the pictures are there. The videos are there.
You really are detached from reality if you claim they are not.
What is not in this thread is one single picture of a concrete core during construction or collapse.
You got nothing Chris, and no amount of lieing is going to change that fact.

Here is the end view of the concrete shear wall of the core.

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

Chris that is a picture of the steel coluns. There is no concrete wall there.
Everybody here has told you that repeatedly. Ask anyone here if they see a concrete wall. See what they say.

Will those pictures show the steel core columns in the core area at elevations above ground? No, they show interior box columns or elevator guide rail support steel and drywall.

And they show no concrete wall what so ever.

This image should show steel core columns if they existed. It does not. What it does show can only be rebar.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Never has an adequate explanation for what those fine vertical elements are, IF they are not rebar. {/quote] Chris this is old stuff. Everybody here has already told you that those are obviously the steel columns. We've already gone over this many, many, many times before.
You don't even have anything new to show.

You cannot debate me because you do not have the experience with steel and concrete to distinguish between them. You also do not have the integrity to conduct fact finding that is required. Your agenda is supporting the NIST report and you have no evidence to do so with so you just say NO to anything which counters the NIST report.

Well, so far everything you've been saying about the pictures and your theory have been pretty much debunked thuroghly and have been shown to be almost completely incorrect by just about everybody who has read this thread. That's why most of the more sane people have stopped reading and responding to this thread.

Yes, I have an agenda, but it is focused on the truth and it does so through my websites and various message boards where I use EVIDENCE. You have no evidence for anything.

I've more than supported my statement and claims. And I don't have to make any of it up. Far smarter people than I have already looked into the WTC collapse. The reports are there for anyone to look at.

You haven't even bothered to explain (NIST doesn't) how the supposed 47, 1300 foot steel core columns fall at free fall and disapear from all the 9-11 images.

This shows more of your mistakes and errors. You don't even know what the NIST reports say or don't say because you refuse to read them. You have no basis to claim what the NIST reports say or don't say because you've never read them. So your statement is meaningless and with out merit.

You haven't because steel like what you say existed cannot be cut within what was seen on 9-11 to fall freely or disapear from images.

You're not a metallurgist or an materials engineer. You are not qualified to make judgments such as this.

 

[uruk]

Haaaaaaaaa ha, that was your image or someone elses erroneously annotated that I reposted.

Chris look at the picture below. Notice the cranes at the top of the tower?
That is a picture taken during construction.

 

[uruk]

Here's another one.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4426&d=1165461601[/qimg]

The reason those diagonals are never seen in the 9-11 images of the steel structure is that they are not a part of the tower. They are a part of the crane platform. But homer did not know that until he posted the erroneously interpreted construction image and I corrected him.

All interpretation of construction images must be consistent with 9-11 images in order to be verified.

Chris, you are showing that you still can't properly interpret pictures.
I pointed out the stabilizing structure for the cranes in the upper portion of the tower. That is because The exterior panels and floor structures are not yet attached to provide stabilty to the cranes towers. I was assuming that you were refering to that as the "moment frame" you werer talking about. (you seem to have trouble expressing yourself coherently)

If you notice in the lower part of the picture I pointed out where they were starting to attach diagnal beams between some of the steel columns.
(notice that I am not pointing to the crane towers)

Quit with this red herring and get back to the subject.

 

[Big Al]

Christophera,
Let's be reasonable here. I'm sure we all felt the same sense of sick, disbelieving horror on September 11, 2001, and we all want justice to be done. You post some pictures (the same ones again and again) and claim that they show evidence of a massive and deep-seated conspiracy to deceive the American public and the world. When we say we can't see the same things you can, you just show the same pictures again and dismiss these doubts by claiming you have already proved what you're saying.

I for one am not in the pay of some shaddowy American éminence grise to toe the official line, and nor have I been threatened in any way of dire consequences should I not do so. However, I am interested to know that lessons have been learned from this horrendous act so that it never happens again. I don't think that interest is best served by spraying suspicion left and right towards some unseen, unknown and probably non-existent power bloc capable of manipulating the thoughts and actions of thousands.

Your pictures do not convince me or others on this site of this "concrete conspiracy", no matter how many times you show them, so can you please stop showing them or come up with some new ones? I am willing to be convinced by persuasive evidence, but blurry JPEGs of dust clouds don't do that for me. Unlike you, I have read the NIST report, and I think it is a painstaking and persuasive argument for showing how airliner crashes and jet fuel fires could bring down steel-cored buildings.
I would like you to consider the following points, whether you choose to address them or not:

1. I can't believe that the architects and engineers would make such a thing of the lightweight steel core construction of the WTC towers if it were impossible to achieve: surely other architects and engineers would have known? Many large buildings are constructed with reinforced concrete cores, so why would on earth would Messrs Yamasaki, Robertson and Skilling lie about this, when the lie could so easily be exposed by recalcitrant building staff? Why not just say, "These buildings have been constructed with reinforced concrete cores"? right from the start? Why the need to lie?
2. If it was for some reason so important to lie about the core construction, why would the relevant authorities, who you claim are capable of suppressing any amount of information or data at will, supply a 1990 documetary crew with so much information about a concrete core (not to mention the mysterious and much-talked-about rebar coating)?
3. Why did the relevant authorities supply Oxford Universiity Press, a British academic establishment, with details of the concrete core, if it was so important to keep it secret?
4. How did the authorities delete every single record of both the American documentary and the British book without arousing outcry or suspicion?
5. If it was so important but easy to delete all these "heretical" references, why is your site still in existence? Why are YOU still in existence?
6. Why would the authorities order that the WTC be constructed ready-made for demolition?
7. If Leslie Robertson has the conscience to mention this now, why did he not do so when this fact came to light? If he was threatened in some way to keep his mouth shut, why would he post these dangerous facts online under his own name on April 1? Is it not far more likely that this was a hoax?
8. Rebar is designed to REINFORCE concrete. What would a layer of squishy plastic explosive do to this reinforcement?
9. Since the storage life of C-4 is ten years under IDEAL conditions, why would the authorities risk even partial non-detonation thirty-five years after construction? This would entail the huge risk of the core being exposed but remaining largely intact with its explosive-laden rebar.
10. If the authorities were waiting for a chance to demolish the towers, to give an excuse to invade Iraq and take control of its oil (a reason that did not exist in the 1960s, when oil was still plentiful), why did they not do so after the bombing in 1993, eight years before?
11. You have often cited as evidence for the non-steel core the fact that other steel-cored buildings have not collapsed in this fashion. Therefore, how can you apply any criteria about how such buildings should or should not collapse?

Despite your often snide imputations that I am a "disinformationist" I am not a U.S. Government employee, and I have not been threatened, cozened or bribed to defend the official line. I am not even a U.S. citizen. I am being totally honest when I say that your pictures do not convince me of anything. I have seen all these pictures on several other sites, including ones mentioning the steel core (including 911research, one of your favourite sites) but the only site I find that uses them to "prove" a concrete core is yours. Therefore, your supposedly "obvious" pictures aren't obvious at all.

So, why not drop the insults, forget the same tired old pictures, and show us that you are capable of rational and reaonable discourse by positing plausible explanations for the above? That you seem to find these fundamental issues as unimportant is, to say the least, worrying to me.

 

[twinstead]

So, why not drop the insults, forget the same tired old pictures, and show us that you are capable of rational and reaonable discourse by positing plausible explanations for the above? That you seem to find these fundamental issues as unimportant is, to say the least, worrying to me.

Psssssst. Chris is insane. Nothing you say or do will change his mind--he has the rock-solid conviction that only a crazy person can have.

Seriously. Logical, rational requests like yours only make it worse; it's best to just walk away.

We need to let this thread die with dignity.

 

[Big Al]

I've tried, twinstead, but it seems to have a life of its own. I am hoping that Chris will at least acknowledge that these teensy little issues are just a wee bit important if rational people are to give his convoluted theory any credence. Of course, I'm probably wasting bandwidth, but I'm still maintaining the forlorn hope that somewhere within Chris is a still small voice of reason.

If this thread is doomed to eternal life like the Ancient Mariner, as it seems, I'd rather there was some rational discussion, even if it's one-sided.

 

[uruk]

Wow! This thread is still going. Just let Chris be. Its not worth the effort.

I'm bored. I ain't got nothing else better to do.

Which means my life is just as pathetic as "you-know-who's"

 

[twinstead]

I'm bored. I ain't got nothing else better to do.

Which means my life is just as pathetic as "you-know-who's"

LOL I just realized that I posted myself for the same reason, even though I vowed I'd stay away forever.

This thread is like a train wreck; it's gruesome, but I just can't look away

 

[Big Al]

I make a point of not slowing down and rubber-necking at road accidents, but I have to make an exception in this case.

 

[uruk]

LOL I just realized that I posted myself for the same reason, even though I vowed I'd stay away forever.

This thread is like a train wreck; it's gruesome, but I just can't look away

There, now you've come to the same sad realization I had about myself.

Come in and wallow in the pigsty friend. There's room for all.

yeeeahaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahaha!!!!!!!ooh god! my life sucks