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

[Christophera]

According to his infamous site http://concretecore.741.com/ , this picture shows "a long row of 3" rebar on 4 foot centers"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636ddc5213.jpg

The three most interesting to the " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers" claim are

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c6ccc66.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

(I had to crop them slightly to fit here)

So what Christophera calls " 3" rebar on 4 foot centers are actually whole floors and large columns.

So my question to Christophera, are you sure about those 3" rebar on 4 foot centers.

Not whole floors and not columns of the core. What amanzafar's images show that you've posted are interior box columns and floor beams connecting them. Those columns are not inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I was waiting for the 3 inch rebar to come back.

From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtml



AND



And there is a nice picture of said rebar, looks to be about 2 to 2.5 inches thick. Guess the WTC was some sort of super-duper rebar

I'd make an educated guess its nominal diameter is 2.257" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1881484#post1881484)

[Pardalis]

Christophera, how old were you when you saw the documentary?

[LashL]

The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.

It doesn't seem to exist, Christophera. Are you sure you didn't dream it?

[KingMerv00]

It was made by PBS, production went from 1987 to 1990.

It cannot be irrelevant if it helps to explain the facts. You have no explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is...

Where? You mean behind that giant plume of opaque smoke?

You are right, I have no explanation for what that is and neither do you. It is a dark thing inside a slightly less dark thing.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-26.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-27.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-16.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/wtcbps-2-15.jpg
source (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf)

[kevin]

"Tube in a tube" construction was the term used in the documentary I saw in 1990 and the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) shown here does not reflect the columns of the various , poorly detailed column plans.

Your memory is wrong. Tube in a tube construction is your invention, it has never been used in a documentary.

and your picture is dust and shadow. And you call this plan poorly detailed?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png

[kevin]

I was waiting for the 3 inch rebar to come back.

From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtml


christophera -
Notice how they're a bit closer together than 4'. There is a reason for that. Have you found out why 3" rebar on 4' centers is structurally unsound yet?

[Christophera]

So trying to change the past won't work there.

Your memory is wrong. Tube in a tube construction is your invention, it has never been used in a documentary.

and your picture is dust and shadow. And you call this plan poorly detailed?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png

Easy for you to attempt dissmissal of a picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) with a few unreasonable words convienent to your weak argument, but you have not explained why the supposed steel core columns of your poorly detailed diagram, not a plan are unseen in this and the other images.

[kevin]

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

3" is wrong
rebar is wrong
4' centers is wrong

So 1 point out of 10 for not misspelling ON, but minus several million for good thinking.

[rwguinn]

So trying to change the past won't work there.



Easy for you to attempt dissmissal of a picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) with a few unreasonable words convienent to your weak argument, but you have not explained why the supposed steel core columns of your poorly detailed diagram, not a plan are unseen in this and the other images.

What Core?
What rebar?

[Metullus]

So trying to change the past won't work there.



Easy for you to attempt dissmissal of a picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) with a few unreasonable words convienent to your weak argument, but you have not explained why the supposed steel core columns of your poorly detailed diagram, not a plan are unseen in this and the other images.Try as I might, I have been unable to make out where the floor decks were connected to your concrete core in your picture of the "core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). There should be dowels extending out from the core that tied into the deck - indeed there should be resteel galore dangling from the core. Surely if you can make out 3" resteel in your pictures you can point these out.

[Woody-]

Proof is so much better than theory.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


I guessed you missed it when I posted Hi-res pictures of the same scene.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c6ccc66.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

Your 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is actually whole floors 10-12 feet apart.

[kevin]

So trying to change the past won't work there.

No idea where "there" is, but you've provided no corroborating evidence that your memory is even close to accurate. All your memory is capable of producing are structurally unsound, physics defying, laugh inducing building designs. Your designs would not pass a high school engineering contest.

Easy for you to attempt dissmissal of a picture of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) with a few unreasonable words convienent to your weak argument,

I can dismiss your picture as a picture of a concrete core for the same reason I can say there is no concrete core in this picture.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f5e3a50b942.gif

but you have not explained why the supposed steel core columns of your poorly detailed diagram, not a plan are unseen in this and the other images.

This makes no sense to me. Clean up your grammar a bit to produce something understandable and I'll respond.

[kevin]

I guessed you missed it when I posted Hi-res pictures of the same scene.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c6ccc66.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

Your 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is actually whole floors 10-12 feet apart.

Did you provide a link to where you got those earlier? I'd like to see some more in a series from that.

[Woody-]

Not whole floors and not columns of the core. What amanzafar's images show that you've posted are interior box columns and floor beams connecting them. Those columns are not inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Your contradicting yourself now. You image

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636ddc5213.jpg

Is labeled on your page

The below photo has a comb like shape of the remnant of the reinforcing bars of the core, briefly standing.

My images are hi-res of the exact same thing, but now, according to you, they only show "interior box columns and floor beams connecting them"

So which is it. Rebarb, or box columns, you cant have it both ways.

[Woody-]

Did you provide a link to where you got those earlier? I'd like to see some more in a series from that.

Here it is

http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/

This is the same page where he got is core inside the smoke picture.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc18.JPG


Even at higher res you cant tell what is in the smoke.

[T.A.M.]

Woody:

You have any more of these photos, like after the dust settled a little. I noticed in one of them, WTC7 is visible on the top. It would be nice to see a few photos of this quality with more of WTC 7 visible.

[kevin]

Y
My images are hi-res of the exact same thing, but now, according to you, they only show "interior box columns and floor beams connecting them"


Interior box columns and floor beams ARE a steel core. Now he claims they had both a steel core and a concrete core? yeesh, i hope he never tries to build a swing set or assemble a bike.

[WildCat]

I can dismiss your picture as a picture of a concrete core for the same reason I can say there is no concrete core in this picture.
I disagree...

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/578944f5e3a50b942.jpg

[Pardalis]

I disagree...

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/578944f5e3a50b942.jpg

And what about those strange markings on the ground?...

I think I can make out "Dust Clouds Rolling Over The Prairies", written in anamorphosis. But what does it mean? Somekind of code phrase?

[Christophera]

What Core? (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
What rebar? (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


Consider that you folks are ignoring quality evidence and that is why you are having a problem.

[Christophera]

I guessed you missed it when I posted Hi-res pictures of the same scene.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c6ccc66.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

Your 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is actually whole floors 10-12 feet apart.

Woody, dude ......... those are interior box columns, outside the core area. You are very confused.

Please stop reading the posts of other posters in this forum, they are working to confuse people. If you help them you'll be supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.

[Woody-]

I guess you missed my post again so Ill ask my question again.

So which is it. Rebarb, or box columns, you cant have it both ways.

Your pic that according to you is rebarb.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636ddc5213.jpg

My pic that according to you is box columns

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c7b3cf9.jpg

Now look carefully at the dust clouds, even though mine is taken from a slightly different angle you can tell they were taken within seconds of each other. So are you telling me that rebar changed to box columns in a split-second?

[Woody-]

Woody, dude ......... those are interior box columns, outside the core area. You are very confused.

Please stop reading the posts of other posters in this forum, they are working to confuse people. If you help them you'll be supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.


My pic and your pic show exactly the same thing taken seconds apart. It cant be rebarb in one and box columns in the other.

[Christophera]

EDIT: Blew the title, can't edit that. It is supposed to read,

Steel Columns On Outside Concrete Shear Wall On Inside.

My pic and your pic show exactly the same thing taken seconds apart. It cant be rebarb in one and box columns in the other.

Sure it can, the steel is outside the concrete.

The steel we see in below the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is slightly taller and has fallen away, as the concrete blew, to reveal the rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) that was at the center of the concrete behind the steel.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Consider that you folks are ignoring quality evidence and that is why you are having a problem.

Answer the question you coward; you said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

[Gravy]

It's INVISICRETE TM you stooges!

EDIT: Blew the title, can't edit that.
Fixed it for you.

[kevin]

The steel we see in below the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is slightly taller and has fallen away, as the concrete blew, to reveal the rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) that was at the center of the concrete behind the steel.

No, what you see is 20" columns. Tell you what, go buy a piece of 3" rebar stand a mile away and take a picture. Compare to the size in the photograph. They won't even be close.

And I like how you can pack explosives all around a piece of 3" rebar and blow it up so it only affects concrete and not the rebar itself.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?
- Will you retract the post you claim to be from Leslie E. Robertson?
- What "distortions" of mine are "visible?" Please provide quotes.

[Christophera]

Answer the question you coward; you said they used custom rebar on the WTC towers. Provide evidence for this or retract your claim that it was custom rebar.

Answer the question you coward; you said there were steel core columns in the core of the tower, provide evidence for this or retract your claim that the core was comprised of multiple steel core columns.

concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?
- Will you retract the post you claim to be from Leslie E. Robertson?
- What "distortions" of mine are "visible?" Please provide quotes.

-I will be publishing my theories on toilet paper and offering 100 roll boxes at discount to universities around the globe.

-Will you apologize for yours on me? Recall, I have evidence, (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) you do not.

-Robertson? Heh, ......... I'll leave that to the reader and advise them that it was posted on April 1, 2006 here,

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.html

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 shall have to go find a few of your distortions and return.

[StoneWT]

What sick, twisted loser gets joy out of spouting inane CTs? Why fabricate a quote from Leslie Robertson if the other evidence is so strong?

Christophera, 3,000 people died on 9/11. Have you no shame? Is your life so worthless that you are forced to sully the memory of the victims?

[Christophera]

I think it is Robertson. On the morning of April 1, I saw that and almost immediately posted somehing like "See, I told you so!. Robertson himself is coming out now." But I didn't because I thought it was a trap set by the disinfos in that thread. After looking at it over and over, something about it seems real.

He has got to be one of the most avid 9-11 lurkers of all. I mean if you bullt those towers and that happened to them, would you want to know the truth? if you knew or suspected the truth would you try and find a safe way for yourself to get it out?
If some one like my self was arguing day in and day out proving what you know to be true, would you want to help? Then be torn between that and the potential risk to yourself and so use an ambigous moment like April fools day to give the truth to someone in away that protected you?


What sick, twisted loser gets joy out of spouting inane CTs? Why fabricate a quote from Leslie Robertson if the other evidence is so strong?

Christophera, 3,000 people died on 9/11. Have you no shame? Is your life so worthless that you are forced to sully the memory of the victims?


But I did not fabricate it. And I don't post it often because I don't know who it is that posted it originally, and then there's always some one such as yourself that will assume I made it myself and posted it, ........ and there is so much good evidence so i don't need to, but these folks here don't use evidence or reason, so what's up with you thinking I'm wrong for pulling, what is at least a good joke on me by somebody unknown, out of the hat just for yuk's to see how it is taken by disinfos here.

I fabricate nothing and use only what is there, what is given (or I might take), reasonably and faithfully to the purpose of reason. Everything I do is honoring their memory and using what their deaths might mean to protect the live of the ones they loved, who loved them, from ever knowing anything like this again.

You haven't explained near free fall and pulverizaton, ....... I have. That protects us all.

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

[gumboot]

I fabricate nothing and use only what is there, what is given (or I might take), reasonably and faithfully to the purpose of reason. Everything I do is honoring their memory and using what their deaths might mean to protect the live of the ones they loved, who loved them, from ever knowing anything like this again.


English is not your native language is it?

Could this all be a mistranslation of the word "concrete"?

-Andrew

[WildCat]

-I'll leave that to the reader and advise them that it was posted on April 1, 2006 here,

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.html

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
ROFLMAO, Chris my man, you really don't get it do you? It was a freaking April Fool's joke! You're supposed to laugh and move on... I can assure you that was not Robertson.

On second thought, you just being an obnoxious and determined (albeit pathetic) troll makes a lot more sense than the possibility that you actually believe this crap.

[Belz...]

The documentary I saw mentioned the one you link to as celebrating the WTC completion but described itself as an intimate examination of the construction process of TWC 1. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and was 2 hours in length.

No, not the same doc.

Then find the damn documentary and post a link.

Also, I'm still trying to understand how they could blow up the core, then the outer "tube" collapses, and THEN we see the core again. How does that work.

Also, for the eleventh time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

You have no explanation for what this (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is

Actually we have several. My favourite is a plume of smoke. You know, like OTHER collapses.

[Gravy]

I think it is Robertson.
Yes, the style and content is certainly what one would expect from the senior partner of a major structural engineering firm.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Answer the question you coward; you said there were steel core columns in the core of the tower, provide evidence for this or retract your claim that the core was comprised of multiple steel core columns.

concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

I have provided evidence substantiating my claim. The fact that you dispute said evidence is not sufficient grounds to disprove it and warrant a withdrawal.

You on the other hand, have not provided evidence backing your claim that custom 3" rebar was used in the construction of the towers. Stop dodging the issue and provide evidence, or retract your claim that the rebar used was custom, and was of 3" diameter.

[WildCat]

You guys are arguing w/ someone who either believes an April Fool's joke was actually a serious post, or is a troll.

Why bother?

[realitybites]

70 pages...

This is on par with KT's Flight 93 thread. And Christophera is still going on about 5 inch twizzlers on 3 foot linoleum flooring (or whatever). Mad props for those trying to rescue him from his own stupidity, but I think it's pretty apparent you're just :bwall

[kevin]

After looking at it over and over, something about it seems real.

evidence and proof are now things where "something about it seems real."

He has got to be one of the most avid 9-11 lurkers of all. I mean if you bullt those towers and that happened to them, would you want to know the truth?

he designed the towers. he knows the truth.

if you knew or suspected the truth would you try and find a safe way for yourself to get it out?
The safest way is to broadcast it far and loud and become such a public figure that anything unsafe that happens to you becomes common knowledge. Sneaking about posting notes on a public internet forum would be a retarded way of doing this. Especially if you used your real name.

If some one like my self was arguing day in and day out proving what you know to be true, would you want to help?

We've recommended you get help several times. You really should look into it, you need it.

Then be torn between that and the potential risk to yourself and so use an ambigous moment like April fools day to give the truth to someone in away that protected you?

uh, no.

But I did not fabricate it. And I don't post it often because I don't know who it is that posted it originally, and then there's always some one such as yourself that will assume I made it myself and posted it,

I know longer believe you posted it, but whoever did was yanking your chain and you've drunk the koolaid so deeply you're drowning.

........ and there is so much good evidence so i don't need to
then it's about time you stopped showing pictures of dust and produced it.

I fabricate nothing and use only what is there, what is given (or I might take), reasonably and faithfully to the purpose of reason. Everything I do is honoring their memory and using what their deaths might mean to protect the live of the ones they loved, who loved them, from ever knowing anything like this again.

Nothing you've posted is honors the memory of anyone on 9/11. You're basically calling everyone involved retards for not noticing that their 3" rebar mysteriously went "somewhere" and came back coated in "something" none of which was in the specifications and they said nothing. Further your claim is that not once when they cut holes in floors or did maintainence work did they notice this weird substance on all the rebar.

Furthermore, every single documentary is wrong. Except this ONE that only you've seen but which proof on it's existance is zero.

So your claim is that everyone is lying, except you. Now that's honoring people, call them liars.

You haven't explained near free fall and pulverizaton,

These only need to be explained if they occured. how near to free fall do you believe the buildings fell. Where are your calculations for how fast it SHOULD have fallen.

How can you pulverize that which isn't there? I see lots of pictures of dust from destroyed drywall and destruction (not pulverization) of concrete floors. I'm not seeing any proof that the dust is concrete from a concrete core.

[Mancman]

Christophera: How the hell could a piece of 3' rebar hundreds of feet tall stand unsupported for several seconds? It would crumple like a piece of string immediately.

[Belz...]

Consider that you folks are ignoring quality evidence and that is why you are having a problem.

QUALITY evidence ? That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

You can barely see buildings in those pictures, let alone rebar.

[Belz...]

Woody, dude ......... those are interior box columns, outside the core area. You are very confused.

No, they're not. Interior box columns are NOT, repeat, NOT horizontal.

Please stop reading the posts of other posters in this forum, they are working to confuse people.

Ah, yes. No one could possibly be a skeptic without beign a shill.

If you help them you'll be supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.

Appeal to emotion.

[KingMerv00]

Please stop reading the posts of other posters in this forum, they are working to confuse people. If you help them you'll be supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.

Does it make you feel better to demonize people who disagree with you? You just accused forumites of intentionally aiding murderers. Jerk.

Hey, I know, maybe YOU are working to bring anarchy to America by destroying the government. All part of your plan to become an arms dealer.

Everyone, don't read Chris's posts. He is actively creating confusing so his organized crime buddies can make a profit.

[Blue Mountain]

Everyone, don't read Chris's posts. He is actively creating confusing so his organized crime buddies can make a profit.
I've been lurking in this thread ever since it started, but long ago gave up reading Christophera's posts. I haven't put him on ignore because every once in a while a post of his is quoted and I like to scroll back and see it in its context (well, as much as Christophera's posts have any context!)
If this thread ever dies, I suspect his 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS will become a catch-phrase among the readers of the CT section.
Actually, it has already ...

[TjW]

QUALITY evidence ? That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

You can barely see buildings in those pictures, let alone rebar.

Now, now. He didn't say what KIND of quality his evidence had. It certainly has a delusional quality.

[Hellbound]

Now, now. He didn't say what KIND of quality his evidence had. It certainly has a delusional quality.

Yes, it's very illusive, as well.

[chipmunk stew]

I left this thread about 63 pages ago. In this whole time, Christophera has not budged a millimeter. He still posts one of the same very few pictures every third or fourth post, claiming in exactly the same language that it proves exactly the same thing he was claiming 63 pages ago.

He's the only person in the entire world who (we assume) believes what he's claiming, and he'll never stop professing his belief in it. He'll never make even the most minor adjustment to his arguments, except perhaps to augment them with more grossly misinterpreted images.

This thread is complete lunacy.

[Hellbound]

I left this thread about 63 pages ago. In this whole time, Christophera has not budged a millimeter. He still posts one of the same very few pictures every third or fourth post, claiming in exactly the same language that it proves exactly the same thing he was claiming 63 pages ago.

He's the only person in the entire world who (we assume) believes what he's claiming, and he'll never stop professing his belief in it. He'll never make even the most minor adjustment to his arguments, except perhaps to augment them with more grossly misinterpreted images.

This thread is complete lunacy.

Yeah.

I look at it like one of those blow-up punching dummies, the kind that fall over and pop back up after you hit them? You never expect them to stay down, but it's still fun to whack on 'em every now and then. Besides, it's not like they can fight back...

:D

[Regnad Kcin]

-I will be publishing my theories on toilet paper and offering 100 roll boxes at discount to universities around the globe.So you admit you will not be presenting your evidence, such as it is, to anyone in an appropriate academic field or professional discipline. Interesting, but not surprising.

-Will you apologize for yours on me? Recall, I have evidence, (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) you do not.You have made repeated, unprovoked, personal attacks on me. I have done nothing of the kind to you. If you believe that a discussion of your evidence, such as it is, is somehow a personal attack, I recommend a course in remedial English.

-Robertson? Heh, ......... I'll leave that to the reader and advise them that it was posted on April 1, 2006 here,

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-9400.htmlInstead of "leav[ing] that to the reader," why not withdraw it? You presented it here without comment (such as "April Fool's!"), suggesting you hoped it might bolster your evidence, such as it is. But as it is fraudulent, you are guilty of an attempt at misinformation.

A sure way to gain a bit of credibility is to correct mistakes. Since you will not -- with regard to the "Leslie E. Robertson" bit, nor any other of your entries -- it can deduced you are not interested in debate, but rather are choosing to spread as much misinformation as you can, hoping some of it will take root.

You remain a fascinating study, Mr. Brown. And one can only wonder as to your motives.

-I shall have to go find a few of your distortions and return.Good luck with that.

[Christophera]

-I shall have to go find a few of your distortions and return.



You remain a fascinating study, Mr. Brown. And one can only wonder as to your motives.

Good luck with that.

To be fair to flea bag, it must be said that most people do not know when they are distorting, it is a normal dysfunction of our ordinary discussion. The true criteria is WHY the person is distorting and is what matters. Peabody (despite what he says) distorts to obliterate a bonafied, feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall and pulverization which was the event responsible for 3000 murders that was later, illegally NOT investigated with due process ignored.

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.

Here is the full exchange leading to peabodys distortions.


Originally Posted by Beleth
...1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction....has been thoroughtly debunked...


While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.


Never mind your continued use of the entirely debunked "free fall" nonsense, as well as other speculative hot air, I want to focus on this portion of your assertion:

"...the imact/fall sequence is backwards..."

I know why you're wrong. I want you to tell me why you think you're correct.

This was very easy to find.

Above Mr. Peabody provides a cognitive distortion with the word "entirely" promoting "all or nothing thinking" when rates of fall are very much in question. The end of the fall is not accurately known. The use of the term "speculative" is a distortion of "minimization". "Hot air" is labelling again. Then he goes on to apply "nonsense" as a method of labelling that promotes "over generalizations". Then with "I want to focus" he implies that he is entitled to more information than is provided here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

And, Mr. Peabody was never able to find anything illogical with the assertion that the wrong tower fell first, or did not follow through with whatever he was thinking.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.


So what is illogical about the assertion that the fall sequence was backwards?

[KingMerv00]

I'll compact the entire thread:

Wasn't free fall. The debris fell faster than the collapse.

The second tower struck fell first because it was struck much lower. The damaged portion of the building had to support more weight.

Addressed numerous times. Did you not see them?

[Hellbound]

Oh my, Christophera.

You have just utterly failed to present your case, and pretty well convicted your own reasoning.

He tried to get through the reason why the towers fell in the expected order. INstead of working with him to that, you refused to participate, spammed the thread with the same pictures instead of answering new questions, and then got yourself suspended.

Since you've been back, he's been trying to get you to pick up the discussion, which you have steadfastly refused to do.

You are clueless, Chris. Your pictures are not evidence (higher resolution photos of the same events show your interpretation to be faulty), you have no evidence of a concrete core that is not better and more easily explained by other means, and your entire argument consists of "is too!"

[azazal]

it must be said that most people do not know when they are distorting, it is a normal dysfunction of our ordinary discussion.

AHHHHH the irony, it burns........

[KingMerv00]

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.

How noble of you to use your inability to reason to accuse innocent people.

[Hellbound]

Good catch, KingMerv.

Frankly, Christophera, when the people believe they need you to protect them, I'm sure they will let you know. Until then, you're overstepping your authority.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust you to empty my trash, much less anything important, especially since you've admitted a willingness to distort and decieve as long as it accomplishes your goals.

[Belz...]

Chris, for the twelfth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.

[Belz...]

The true criteria is WHY the person is distorting and is what matters. Peabody (despite what he says) distorts to obliterate a bonafied, feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall and pulverization which was the event responsible for 3000 murders that was later, illegally NOT investigated with due process ignored.

That's many lies in one fell swoop, chris. Making it a hobby, I see.

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.

Speaking of which: exactly when are those freedoms supposed to go ? It's been 5 years...

[KingMerv00]

When I use cognitive distortions I do it in the hope of seeing justice in those 3000 capitol crimes, preserving our Constitution, our republic, our freedoms and protecting all of our futures.


Chris:

Windmills! Windmills everywhere! CHAAAAAAAAARGE!!!!

[Christophera]

I'll compact the entire thread:

Wasn't free fall. The debris fell faster than the collapse.

The second tower struck fell first because it was struck much lower. The damaged portion of the building had to support more weight.

Addressed numerous times. Did you not see them?

OMG!!!!!. Garbage responses are always rejected.

This is choice. Let me rephrase it for KingMerv00. (We now know why the 00)

The falling fell faster than the falling. Or if that won't do, "The debris falling fell faster than the building that wasn't yet falling. Freakin' double speak = 00.


How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.

[Christophera]

Speaking of which: exactly when are those freedoms supposed to go ? It's been 5 years...

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

[T.A.M.]

The main portions of the towers fell at "Near" free fall speeds. NIST has addressed questions around this. The accelerated momentum of the top portion on each tower was powerful/extreme enough to overcome what little resistence would be offered by the structure below it. The steel of each floor was designed to hold a static load of the floors above, not a dynamic one.

As for why the 2nd hit tower fell first...yes it was that it was hit lower, but also it was hit more into a corner, causing assymetrical load changes on the area of impact in comparison to the load at the impact area for the 1st building.

[KingMerv00]

OMG!!!!!. Garbage responses are always rejected.

Not always. We still talk to you.

This is choice. Let me rephrase it for KingMerv00. (We now know why the 00)

The falling fell faster than the falling. Or if that won't do, "The debris falling fell faster than the building that wasn't yet falling. Freakin' double speak = 00.

How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.

I was referring to the debris that was ejected during the collapse.

1) WTC starts to collapse. Debris ejected from the floors due to air pressure.

2) Debris hits the ground well before the collapse is complete.

Therefore the builiding did collapse at free fall speed.


I guess you don't object to the order of the WTC's collapse anymore since you didn't address it?

[Pardalis]

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

What the hell does that mean? :confused:

I think Christophera has changed gear, from "insane" to "even-more-insane".

[T.A.M.]

I think he is doing the who Bukakke thing....you know...with stupid.

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

So what do you suggest we do to "test" rights and freedoms?
So what do you suggeste we do to "test" reason or evidence?
I assume noone thinks the way I do. I doubt KingMerv does either.

[MarkyX]

The falling fell faster than the falling.


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5549/explodefj8.gif

I changed this to a link to the animated gif. Potentially NSFW.

[LashL]

Teh crazee looms larger than teh stoopid tonight.

Unbelievable.

[Christophera]

Not always. We still talk to you.



I was referring to the debris that was ejected during the collapse.

1) WTC starts to collapse. Debris ejected from the floors due to air pressure.

2) Debris hits the ground well before the collapse is complete.

Therefore the builiding did collapse at free fall speed.


I guess you don't object to the order of the WTC's collapse anymore since you didn't address it?

Since we cannot see when the building is actually destroyed to the ground (no collapse involved) the issue of rate of fall is moot. The towers fell way too fast.

I guess you missed my analysis of the sequence of the towers falling here where the sequence is shown to make the official story implausible.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

and you also missed this regarding WTC 3 falling first.

How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since we cannot see when the building is actually destroyed to the ground (no collapse involved) the issue of rate of fall is moot. The towers fell way too fast.

I guess you missed my analysis of the sequence of the towers falling here where the sequence is shown to make the official story implausible.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

and you also missed this regarding WTC 3 falling first.

"Dear Christophera,

You're wrong.

Love,
The Internet"

[Christophera]

I think he is doing the who Bukakke thing....you know...with stupid.

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

So what do you suggest we do to "test" rights and freedoms?
So what do you suggeste we do to "test" reason or evidence?
I assume noone thinks the way I do. I doubt KingMerv does either.

We file lawsuits against government at any level to see if courts will recognize, follow and uphold laws. We have a right to redress grievances against government, it is a second way to control our government aside from democratic/legislative action.

When the populations are deceived, un informed, mis informed, it is the only way to correct aberrant governmental action/neglect or incompetence. It is our right and duty to do so, if we are competent, aware Americans.

Doing so with competent evidence tests the courts ability to reason, or it test the evidence.

Have you filed a lawsuit against aberrant government since 2001? I'm on my 5th and I can tell you, we've all but lost our rights and our freedom is next. Unless we can observe simple truths without bias ourselves, and unify around them in redress.

[T.A.M.]

NIST has concluded that the rest of the building, below the floors of impact offered virtually no resistence, due to the overwhelming accelerated momentum of the falling floors above.

Given the majority of the building fell at "close" to Free-Fall Speed, and given the building offered "Little" in terms of resistance, I'd say they fell at just about the right speed...namely a little longer than free fall...lol

[Christophera]

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

What the hell does that mean? :confused:

I think Christophera has changed gear, from "insane" to "even-more-insane".

Glad you stopped trying to pretend you are intelligent.

[Christophera]

The main portions of the towers fell at "Near" free fall speeds. NIST has addressed questions around this. The accelerated momentum of the top portion on each tower was powerful/extreme enough to overcome what little resistence would be offered by the structure below it. The steel of each floor was designed to hold a static load of the floors above, not a dynamic one.

As for why the 2nd hit tower fell first...yes it was that it was hit lower, but also it was hit more into a corner, causing assymetrical load changes on the area of impact in comparison to the load at the impact area for the 1st building.

If assymetry is the cause of an early fall, then why did the body of WTC 2 fall symmetrically east instead of more south than east towards the damaged corner??

[T.A.M.]

We file lawsuits against government at any level to see if courts will recognize, follow and uphold laws. We have a right to redress grievances against government, it is a second way to control our government aside from democratic/legislative action.

When the populations are deceived, un informed, mis informed, it is the only way to correct aberrant governmental action/neglect or incompetence. It is our right and duty to do so, if we are competent, aware Americans.

Doing so with competent evidence tests the courts ability to reason, or it test the evidence.

Have you filed a lawsuit against aberrant government since 2001? I'm on my 5th and I can tell you, we've all but lost our rights and our freedom is next. Unless we can observe simple truths without bias ourselves, and unify around them in redress.

Bolding and Italics my emphasis...

Maybe when someone here finds some Competent Evidence that refutes the Official Story, than they will file such a suit...I haven't seen any...

[Pardalis]

I'm on my 5th and I can tell you, we've all but lost our rights and our freedom is next.

Wait a second, are you saying you filed 5 law suits against your own government?

[Mr. Skinny]

We file lawsuits against government at any level to see if courts will recognize, follow and uphold laws. We have a right to redress grievances against government, it is a second way to control our government aside from democratic/legislative action.

When the populations are deceived, un informed, mis informed, it is the only way to correct aberrant governmental action/neglect or incompetence. It is our right and duty to do so, if we are competent, aware Americans.

Doing so with competent evidence tests the courts ability to reason, or it test the evidence.

Have you filed a lawsuit against aberrant government since 2001? I'm on my 5th and I can tell you, we've all but lost our rights and our freedom is next. Unless we can observe simple truths without bias ourselves, and unify around them in redress.
May I ask the nature of your five lawsuits against "aberrant government"?

ETA: Maybe I mis-read. You're on your 5th what?, Chris.

[Pardalis]

Glad you stopped trying to pretend you are intelligent.

Thanks, coming from a madman this is quite a compliment.

[chipmunk stew]

Christophera,

What fell inside your tube in a tube concrete core? If 3" rebar on 4' centers stands, why do the hallways crumble (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg)?

[LashL]

I just want to mention that Christophera did the exact same thing for years at DU that he is doing here now - that is, posting the same vague photographs over and over and over and over and over again in every thread he was on while insisting upon the existence of a concrete core, something that not another single person in the world has ever seen or believes; yapping about a "documentary" that not another person in the world has ever heard of or seen; using the same rude and insulting language to accuse everyone else of being deceptive, dishonest, lacking integrity, etc., as a smokescreen to avoid ever offering proof of anything he posts, etc. - until he finally got banned as he grew ever more shrill and abusive.

Just so you know.

(Cross posted to the other thread where christophera is currently insulting members)

[chipmunk stew]

Christophera,

The elevator shaft (http://www.e11th-hour.org/public/terror/graphics/wtc.rubble.GIF) remained standing. You can't account for the hallways crumbling (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg).

pancakes in basement (http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/wtcruinsAP.jpg)

[Mancman]

Christophera,

The elevator shaft (http://www.e11th-hour.org/public/terror/graphics/wtc.rubble.GIF) remained standing. You can't account for the hallways crumbling (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg).

pancakes in basement (http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/wtcruinsAP.jpg)

You are blatantly ignoring the obvious evidence of 3" REBAR ON 4" CENTRES (http://www.wtc-trauer.de/pics/wtc.jpg) and CORE WALL AT BASE. (http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/RL-WTC%20Photos/WTC-thumbnails/3-d-wtc-WTC-img0072_small.jpg)

[Woody-]

Christophera has discovered a magical new invention, he can make floor beams change into 3 inch rebarb by simply changing the resolution of the picture.

[Christophera]

I just want to mention that Christophera did the exact same thing for years at DU that he is doing here now - that is, posting the same vague photographs over and over and over and over and over again in every thread he was on while insisting upon the existence of a concrete core, something that not another single person in the world has ever seen or believes;

Uh huh, but you are so wrong. Distorting the truth. DU is lame, I shined it on for a year or more until I had worked my way through other sites like Let's Roll. This site is even lamer.

Many people know the concrete core was the core of the towers. They are not CT'ers either.

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

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2197378
#925
Old 07-23-2006, 11:28 AM

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:vM8DqdXMklgJ:www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf+wtc+%22concrete+core%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=117&client=firefox-a

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:NvVcrCtfknoJ:www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf+wtc+%22concrete+cor e%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=130&client=firefox-a

http://www.downingjcr.co.uk/forum/thread.php?id=1&threadid=31071&PHPSESSID=7939780fe0b4d1e28139abdc619ae367

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664

[Christophera]

You are blatantly ignoring the obvious evidence of

Wasting peoples time now huh.

Whatsamatta, run out of baking recipes for spam?

Try the truth for a change.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Gravy]

and you also missed this regarding WTC 3 falling first.
Ed, please tell me he means WTC 2.

[Christophera]

Ed, please tell me he means WTC 2.

Wow, you really know what is important.

Too bad you can't explain why none of the 47 supposed steel core columns are never seen when they should be. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


Too bad merv has no nerv and can't answer

[CptColumbo]

Wow, you really know what is important.

Too bad you can't explain why none of the 47 supposed steel core columns are never seen when they should be. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


Too bad merv has no nerv and can't answer

Who the [rule 8] is Merv and what has he got to do with your evasion of simple questions?

BTW why did you lie on the other site?

Do you lie often or just on the internet?

Do you think that by evading the questions it increases your credibility?

Do you think ignoring the credible and easily confirmed evidence that we provided to you, that shows your interpretaions of photos taken from a great distance are wrong, somehow magically makes you right?

Since you have no credibility here (as a proven liar among other things), and have no interest in engaging in an honest discussion (see above) why do you continue to post here?

[LashL]

Seriously, people, he will just continue to spout the same crap as he did for years on another forum without ever once acknowledging a rational post or a legitimate question. His only purpose is to spam.

And he does it incessantly.

This forum is better than to allow him to do that for another two years, isn't it?
Let me rephrase that.... this forum is good enough to let him spam as much as he wants for the next two years but better than responding to him for another two years, isn't it?

[Gravy]

If assymetry is the cause of an early fall, then why did the body of WTC 2 fall symmetrically east instead of more south than east towards the damaged corner??
Finding 32: The building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the east and south at the onset of structural collapse. The tilt occurred toward the east side with the long span floors. Estimates made from photographs indicate that there was approximately a 3 degree to 4 degree tilt to the south, and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east, prior to significant downward movement of the upper portion of the building.

The tilt to the south did not increase any further as the upper building section began to fall, but the tilt to the east continued reaching 20 degrees to 25 degrees before dust clouds obscured the view.Bolding mine. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

[Alareth]

Ok, let me see if I can sum this all up after skimming through this thread.

The OP states he has incontrivertible proof that supports his theories but refuses to show it, all the while insisting that the bruden of proof to prove him wrong is on our shoulders.

We cannot prove him wrong because all actual evidence we do provide in his eyes is suspect and therefore not acceptible.

Is that the gist of it all? This has been allowed to go on for 72 pages?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, not that Christophera has joined Sir Knight, Hammegk, and American on my ignore list, perhaps this thread will become entertaining. Someone let me know if he ever retracts his claim of customer 3" rebar.

[Gravy]

It's quiz time again, Chris! You didn't answer the first time. Come on, stop misbehaving like you do at bath time. Answer the questions. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1887265&postcount=2722

I was watching the Ric Burns documentary New York, and there's a scene that's shot from an elevator inside the core during construction, before the core's drywall was installed. The elevator rises past 8 floors, and all you see is columns, floors, and daylight. That INVISICRETE TM sure is something!

Chris, I've told you many times that you should see that documentary, which actually exists, rather than constantly rerunning your imaginary documentary. You would learn a lot. Why haven't you watched it?

I've always wondered how Leslie Robertson, with all his degrees and professional memberships (P.E., C.E., S.E., D.Sc., D.Eng., NAE, F.ASCE, AIJ, JSCA, AGIR), could be so dumb as to not know how his building was constructed. It's a wonder all his buildings haven't collapsed!

“A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’” said Robertson. However, his chart plotting the strength of steel vs. concrete at various temperatures showed that at the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials become similarly weak.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2002/04/17_alum.html

The towers were believed to have been the first to rely on "shaft-wall" interior cores, made of gypsum-based wallboard instead of harder materials, masonry or reinforced concrete. The shaft-wall design was considered a breakthrough at the time, favored for its fire resistance and air-tight qualities. A question today is whether abandoning shaft-wall construction is worth the additional weight and cost.

Leslie E. Robertson, who directed the structural design of the Trade Center, said he would be "astonished" if codes are changed to require harder interior cores. The proper response, he says, "is not making buildings resistant to the airplane, but to keep the airplane from running into it." http://www.absconsulting.com/news/wsj-oct10-01.pdf

For example, in the Delaware talk, Dr. Thornton contrasted the lightly protected, wallboard-encased stairwells of the World Trade Center — which were severed by flying debris, trapping hundreds of people above — with the thick concrete walls enclosing the Petronas stairwells. In the talk, Dr. Thornton said "concrete-encased stairwells probably would have survived that and allowed people from above to get down," Dr. Chajes recalled.

He describes Mr. Robertson's design as visionary and points out that the advanced, high-strength concrete holding up all of the Petronas Towers — not just the core — had not been developed when the trade center went up in the 1960's and 1970's.

In that respect, the Petronas Towers, built in 1998, were made possible by rapid improvements in the most mundane of materials, said Franz Ulm, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "In the '80's and '90's, there occurred a real revolution in concrete materials that is almost not known to the public," he said.

He said that high-strength concrete generally resisted both blasts and fires better than steel like that in the trade center, where the plane impacts probably knocked loose a lightweight form of fireproofing that had been sprayed onto columns and beams, which then buckled in the heat.

Advocates for steel construction, which has long battled concrete in the marketplace, dispute the claim that there is any real difference in properly constructed buildings that use either of the materials — especially since even the high-strength concrete is reinforced with embedded steel bars. "There's this perception that just because we wrap something in concrete, that it's protected from the fire," said Charlie Carter, chief structural engineer for the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago. "That's not true."

For a combination of historical, cultural and economic reasons, tall, concrete-core buildings dedicated to office use are unusual in New York, where builders prefer the wallboard-enclosed cores with steel frames that Mr. Robertson pioneered in the trade center.

But Patricia J. Lancaster, an architect who is the city's building commissioner, said that despite the possibility of higher costs, the city should look at revising its building codes. "Certainly, the hardening of core areas including elevator shafts and stairway enclosures is something that needs to be looked at," she said. "Comparing 2 Sets of Twin Towers" by James Glanz. New York Times, October 23, 2002

The gypsum panels were used to form fire-resistant enclosures around steel core columns, stairwells, mechanical shafts, and the core area in the towers. The core column fireproofing varied according to the column location and exposure to occupied spaces. The primary function of the core columns was to carry the building gravity loads. The exterior columns
resisted wind loads and, in addition, carried approximately half of the gravity loads.

Preliminary analysis of the core and exterior columns considered their individual buckling behavior and how it varied for uniform elevated temperatures. The columns were found to have sufficient capacity for
tower gravity loads, even under elevated temperatures and a loss of lateral support at several floors. This was also found in more detailed finite element models of the columns.

The core columns were studied to determine the most efficient way to reduce the complexity of the model while still capturing buckling behavior at room and elevated temperatures. Four classifications of core column structural damage were established: severed, heavy damage, moderate damage, and light damage. Classification criteria included plastic strain levels and lateral deformation from the column centerline. Columns that were severed or heavily damaged were removed to simulate impact damage in the global analysis of each tower. Two types of floor structural damage were identifiedfrom the impact analysis results: (1) missing floor areas and (2) severely damaged floor areas incapable of supporting loads.

Fireproofing was assumed to be dislodged from core columns only if the columns were subject to direct debris impact that failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of the column1.

Case D predicted more damage to core columns than Case C, but the extent of the fireproofing damage was similar, as shown in Fig. E–4.

Thermal Weakening of the Core:
• The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
• The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep) was resisted truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to exterior
• As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior of the south wall), the north and south walls each carried about 10 percent loads, and the east and west walls each carried about 25 percent more loads. Core columns carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Photos: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/Gayle-Proj3%20Mech%20Props%20NCST%20Final.pdf

NARRATOR: To support most of the downward weight of the building Robertson created a separate inner core made of steel girders. The core also housed the lifts and emergency stairwells, but neither the outer skeleton nor the inner core could stand alone, so Robertson used steel floor trusses to knit the whole thing together.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: The World Trade Center is a very large project. In essence it still boils down to a series of small pieces and this is an example of a top part assembly of a typical floor truss.

NARRATOR: The floor trusses had a vital structural role. They held the towers firm bracing the outer skeleton against the inner core. Without the trusses the towers could not stand. Their performance is now at the heart of the investigation into what happened. Another area of innovation was in fire protection. To save weight the trusses were coated not in concrete but in the latest, lightweight, heat-resistant foam and instead of protecting the inner core with concrete the architects used both the spray and a lightweight fire resistant plasterboard called drywall. Drywall is very effective at keeping out fire, but it has one problem: it's not very strong.

BRIAN CLARK: Drywall had been blown off the wall and was lying on, you know propped up against the railing here and, and we had to move it, shovel it aside. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

Most of the load was supported by several fourteen-inch columns, forty inches on center, surrounding the building; giving it the appearance of a pinstriped suit.* The only other main structural component was the core of steel columns that supported the elevator shafts and stairwells in the center of the building.

The columns in the core were substantial and capable of bearing huge gravity loads.* However, they depended on the floor truss system to provide lateral support.* As the flooring system was destroyed by fire, greater lengths of core columns were exposed, which were already overloaded because of the destruction of the exterior columns.* Taking away the lateral support of the flooring system caused the core columns to have a larger effective length factor (K), and the columns buckled, causing the floors to crash straight down on one another.* The figure above shows that with a larger K-value, the allowable load on a column is significantly less.

The core structure consisted of steel beams with this spray on fire protection material.* It is suspected that the material was stripped off the steel, directly exposing the columns to the intense fire.*

From "A Secure Skyline: A comprehensive analysis of the World Trade Center collapse and recommendations for revisions to current fire resistance building codes"*http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/697/714416/ModelsTemplates/ReportTemplate.doc&e=9797

NARRATOR: In Robertson's design, the downward weight of the building was also supported by large steel columns around the building's inner core, which is where he placed elevator shafts, emergency stairs and other building services. But the tall vertical columns of the inner core and outer walls were like freestanding stilts until Robertson tied them together with floor trusses.

MATTHYS LEVY: The core in concrete might have actually stood for a much longer period of time, allowing many, many more occupants to leave the building. It would certainly have allowed the occupants on the upper floors to have a safe passage through at least one of the vertical stairwells. The core in concrete might have actually stood through the fire and survived.

NARRATOR: Long and thin, these horizontal steel assemblies were connected by bolts to the columns at each end and then welded to the exterior columns for extra support. The trusses were critical for holding the buildings together, and their performance is now at the heart of the investigation into what happened.

Robertson tried to save weight and costs wherever he could. He fireproofed all steel members, including the trusses, with the latest lightweight heat-resistant foam. And he kept the core area light by walling it off with drywall or Sheetrock(TM) rather than concrete.

JONATHAN BARNETT (Professor, Fire Protection Engineering): This is very typical. We often build buildings this way, two layers of Sheetrock on either side of a steel framework. It's just like you might build a wall, except we use special Sheetrock that's particularly fire-resistant.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

Mr. Robertson's groundbreaking structural designs that have influenced the design and construction of tall buildings include: ...The creation of the shaftwall system now almost universally used for fire-resistive walls in high-rise buildings. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~eeriumn/leslie.htm

The swaying of the cables in the elevator shafts has been known to dislodge the fire protection from the columns in the cores of these buildings... The Twin Towers would be perforated steel boxes surrounding a hollow steel core.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT

The buildings were architecturally interesting in many ways. Each structure is based on a central steel core, which is surrounded by the outside wall, a 209-foot by 209-foot cube of 18-inch tubular steel columns, set 22 inches apart. The cores and "tube walls" share the enormous physical weight of the structures and protect them against the extraordinary wind forces of buildings that tall. There are trusses that support each floor, but no other columns between the cores and outside walls. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/11/collapse_background/index.html

One of the major issues of concern during the design was that this building did not include the masonry infill that had been included in the skyscrapers of the past.* Although thought on paper not to contribute much to the overall stiffness of a building, comparative analysis of the as-built stiffness of this and other skeletal buildings was substantially less than the masonry-infill predecessors. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm

While the exterior provided protection against the winds, the interior served as the main support for the building. The internal columns formed a core that took care of the weight. Second, Yamasaki had to make sure the air pressure generated by the express elevators would not buckle the elevator shafts. The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html

[Blackadder_no]

Guys? Isn't it obvious?

The case of Christophera (http://redwing.hutman.net/~Mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm)

[Belz...]

I guess this explains your perceptional problem as you do not actually do anything requiring a test of rights and freedoms, or reason and evidence and so assume everyone sees things the same as you do without reasoning or evidence.

Answer the question chris: where did your freedoms go ? I, for one, didn't notice any change, except higher security at airports.

Oh, and I'm Canadian, by the way. Just so you don't put your foot in your mouth again.

[Belz...]

Since we cannot see when the building is actually destroyed to the ground (no collapse involved) the issue of rate of fall is moot. The towers fell way too fast.

Based on what ?

How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.

They were hit minutes apart from one another, and fell minutes apart from one another. I don't see where the problem is. WTC 2 was hit lower and the impact damaged the structure more than WTC 1's impact. How is that surprising ?

[Belz...]

If assymetry is the cause of an early fall, then why did the body of WTC 2 fall symmetrically east instead of more south than east towards the damaged corner??

This argument reminds me of Killtown.

You DO know that the solution isn't as simple as a grade-school math problem, right ?

Too bad you can't explain why none of the 47 supposed steel core columns are never seen when they should be. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

You expected to see 47 steel columns on THAT picture ?

[Hellbound]

Christophera:

You seem to be missing the point. The building had a steel core. It's obvious to those who aren't trying to obfuscate. I mean, you can tell by the extermination records, and the pictures of porcupines. If the fleeble fell out of the breadbox, then the cat must be gray. There's no truck in the refridgerator. All the king's horses went to La-La land, and the puppy peed on the carpet.

I mean, it's obvious.

[Hey, logic hasn't worked...]

[kevin]

The OP states he has incontrivertible proof that supports his theories but refuses to show it, all the while insisting that the bruden of proof to prove him wrong is on our shoulders.

We cannot prove him wrong because all actual evidence we do provide in his eyes is suspect and therefore not acceptible.

Is that the gist of it all? This has been allowed to go on for 72 pages?

Actually he posts his "incontrovertible proof" incessantly. The proof (according to him) is pictures taken from miles away of the collapse. His pictures are usually:


pictures of dust that he can tell is concrete and is way more than concrete from floors could produce. Don't ask for his calculations that prove the volume of the cloud could only be produced by a concrete core. And don't ask for the spectroscopy results of the cloud that prove it's only made up of concrete.
Pictures of "pulverized concrete". his proof of CD charges is the supposedly complete pulverization of the concrete in the core and his proof of pulverized concrete is pictures of the cleanup with gravel on the ground. He fails to realize a) he can't see what's under the gravel so bigger chunks of concrete flooring might be down there, b) they probably brought in gravel to help stabilize the area machinery would be driving so his pictures may very well be gravel that was brought in.
pictures of more dust with a blob added in. Proof of the concrete core still standing after collapse is a picture of dust with a shadowy blob. Again no spectroscopy or analysis of what the blob is, just claims it can only be a concrete core. Of course a steel core would produce exactly the same photo because of the dust obscuring the whole.
pictures of 3" rebar on 4' centers. pictures of a supposed spire of rebar taken from miles away. Despite the fact that 3" anything is a heck of a lot smaller than what is in the photos, complete lack of explanation of why explosives packed around the rebar wouldn't also take out the rebar, complete lack of understanding that rebar is laid vertically and horizontally and the photo only shows verticles, this is still incontrovertible proof.

[chipmunk stew]

Christophera:

You seem to be missing the point. The building had a steel core (http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0406/8506848_80X60.jpg). It's obvious to those who aren't trying to obfuscate. I mean, you can tell by the extermination records, and the pictures of porcupines. If the fleeble fell out of the breadbox, then the cat must be gray (http://www.btinternet.com/~felthamassociates/john/kytourist.jpg). There's no truck in the refridgerator. All the king's horses went to La-La land, and the puppy peed on the carpet.

I mean, it's obvious.

Not to mention, the hallways crumbled (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg).

[Gravy]

Not to mention, the hallways crumbled (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/wtc-4small.jpg).
Those aren't hallways. If they were you'd be able to see through them. From all angles. What you have there are two pieces of 208-foot rebar on 320-foot centers. That's a custom fabrication, unlike the 48-inch rebar on 15-foot centers that Christophera keeps pointing out to us.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

[Woody-]

Too bad you can't explain why none of the 47 supposed steel core columns are never seen when they should be. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


Thats odd, in the high-res pic of the same thing you were certain that they showed inner box columns, which of course were part of the core.

[Christophera]

Those aren't hallways. If they were you'd be able to see through them. From all angles. What you have there are two pieces of 208-foot rebar on 320-foot centers. That's a custom fabrication, unlike the 48-inch rebar on 15-foot centers that Christophera keeps pointing out to us.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Congratulations,

You have found the only piece of evidence that MIGHT be misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had steel core columns.

You post is intentionally confusing and idiotic providing uneeded ridicule showing that you yourself do not really believe the image you post shows the "supposed steel core columns".

The 2 columns toppeling have a base pivot point that can be projected downward at an angle to the lower left to show they are a part of the row of interior box columns on the left that have separated and are falling inward. What you confusingly refer to as hallways are simply rectangular spaces formed by the interior box columns and floor beams on the panel of columns we see that were the inner wall of the outer tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction.

If those columns were inside the core area, at that height, caught falling at that angle, they would be much further to the right and we would see more of them approximately parallel as they topple. With 47 , 1300 foot steel columns toppling in whatever directions, they would be a prominent feature in the images of the towers coming down. As it is this, is the only image that can me even misinterpreted to show "core columns" from the demolition.

Niice try Gravy.

[Brainache]

Are you serious? This is about the fifth time that image has been posted in this thread and this is the first time you've seen it?
It is what you have previously referred to as 3" rebar on 4'centres.

[Christophera]

Since we cannot see when the building is actually destroyed to the ground (no collapse involved) the issue of rate of fall is moot. The towers fell way too fast.

Based on what ?

Based on real collapses of steel and concrete structures. Which, by the way, never collapse all the way to the ground. The conservation of energy has them slowing, then deflecting.


How lame, attempting to equate time to load. If there were 5 years difference in the falls, maybe.

They were hit minutes apart from one another, and fell minutes apart from one another. I don't see where the problem is. WTC 2 was hit lower and the impact damaged the structure more than WTC 1's impact. How is that surprising ?

It is convienent to say that WTC 2 was damaged more but it is well known that the right engine went entirely through the building and most of the fuel did too. If the damage was worse then it would be because the core corner was taken out which would mean that the tower would fall to the south east, or more south as the perimeter wall was damaged on the south side.

Your argument is self defeatng.

[twinstead]

All this thread really proves is that you can't debate with crazy people.

[Christophera]

If assymetry is the cause of an early fall, then why did the body of WTC 2 fall symmetrically east instead of more south than east towards the damaged corner??

This argument reminds me of Killtown.

You DO know that the solution isn't as simple as a grade-school math problem, right ?

Yea, tell me about it. We need an explanation of why the top of WTC 1 fell south when it was hit on the north side. the school kids will lose all confidence in science if you try to explain with your logic.


Too bad you can't explain why none of the 47 supposed steel core columns are never seen when they should be. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)


You expected to see 47 steel columns on THAT picture ?

I only expected to see the 47 1300 foot steel columns if they existed, which they did not.

I expect you to be able to come up with images of some of the 47, 1300 foot columns clearly in the core area doing something. 72 pages and not one image that clearly shows this. Pretty bad,

However I think you might find some okay baking recipes posted by the more desperate, less creative obfuscators earlier in the thread.

[Christophera]

All this thread really proves is that you can't debate with crazy people.


Thanks for proving you can't debate at all with a head of foam.

[Jabra]

This looks like a fun thread!

I don't see anything 'wrong' with the collapse videos. In fact, I don't see any substantial difference in the way those two towers came down compared to videos I've seen of planned/designed building demolitions (and I've seen a few). Pancaking and the 'vertical accordion momentum effect' (I just made that up) explain everything to my satisfaction.

Almost 4 weeks ago, I went to Manhattan for the first time, as a tourist. We went to the WTC site, and it's a gigantic hole in the ground. (And Manhattaners ABHOR a hole....the thinking is: 'Fill It Up Again', with something or other, to make the hole 'disappear'.)

Anyway, the bus tour guide pointed out to us that the Deutsch Bank Tower, which is directly adjacent to 'Ground Zero', is being dismantled from the inside out, as it is structurally crippled and at risk of coming down of it's own accord (but in an 'uncontrolled fashion'), because of the events of 5 years ago. It can't be fixed, ever, and if left to itself, you would see a repeat of those two tower coming down very soon. They can't take it down with a controlled detonation, however, as the 'ripple effect' would transfer to yet more towers.

Manhattan is nothing but a sea of concrete. But it wasn't explained why just the Deutsch Bank tower was affected in this way, and not a whole bunch of other towers as well.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome Jabra, to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your views and opinions will be allowed, if not accepted, regardless of what they are.

As for your comment that the videos look like controlled demolitions, I would make the following points.

1. In the videos of the WTC 1&2 Collapses, the buildings start to collapse from the top down, where as in Controlled Demolitions, the buildings begin their collapses from the bottom (go take another look at some REAL Controlled Demolitions).

2. Real Controlled Demolitions have a series of explosives go off in almost every level, with accompanying Explosions, in a "rat a tat tat" sequence, not in a random, occasional way. The WTC Collapses had no such sounds, with the exception of sporatic occasional "Explosions" being heard by witnesses.

Anyone else care to mention anything.

[Pardalis]

Hi Jabra

In fact, I don't see any substantial difference in the way those two towers came down compared to videos I've seen of planned/designed building demolitions (and I've seen a few).

Well basically, for laymen such as we are, a building falling down looks like a building falling down. :D

Anyway, the bus tour guide pointed out to us that the Deutsch Bank Tower, which is directly adjacent to 'Ground Zero', is being dismantled from the inside out, as it is structurally crippled and at risk of coming down of it's own accord (but in an 'uncontrolled fashion'), because of the events of 5 years ago. It can't be fixed, ever, and if left to itself, you would see a repeat of those two tower coming down very soon. They can't take it down with a controlled detonation, however, as the 'ripple effect' would transfer to yet more towers.

I read something about that here (http://www.answers.com/topic/deutsche-bank-building).

[Jabra]

Thank you for the welcome, T.A.M. I think I'm going to like it here, and look forward to getting to know all you 'regs'! I hope to get organized and put up my own moniker soon.

It seems to me that the WTC towers collapsed 'from the top down' (the perception of 'movement' as seen from the ground, so to speak) as they 'crumpled' at their weakest base point of damage (which was 'way up there').

A controlled demolition seeks to have the building 'collapse in on itself', towards the center, so as to minimize 'leaning effects' and therefore potential collateral damage to other structures adjacent to the demolition area. In such cases, trying to 'kick out the bottom or foundation' from under the building is not a good idea, as this can initiate a leaning curve up above due to uneven weight distribution. I believe the sequence of internal charges are set so as to 'radiate outwards' from the center, and they begin at the higher levels first. This way, gravity is allowed the best chance of guiding the 'straight down' result.

However, I'm not a demolitions expert, just a fan of such shows on Discovery Channel! lol But I'd love to hear from an expert on this!

[twinstead]

Thanks for proving you can't debate at all with a head of foam.

LOL I feel your pain. In your mind you've probably been debating with 'heads of foam' all your life.

[bob_kark]

However, I'm not a demolitions expert, just a fan of such shows on Discovery Channel! lol But I'd love to hear from an expert on this!
Well, you could always see what the NIST had to say:
http://wtc.nist.gov/

[T.A.M.]

I am not an expert at all. I just know that when I have looked at classical Demolition (I think Gravy or Brainster or someone posted one here or on their sites) it the floors near the bottom appear to collapse, allowing the building to come down. I'll see if I can fidn a link...

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Landmark Tower Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8vREo7PFz4&mode=related&search=)

A good one to start with

Same Building, better video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBw9v0xs_9k&mode=related&search=)

[Jabra]

Hi Pardalis

Thanks for that link. That's better than what the tour guide had to offer! 'Deconstruction' is an interesting word...and it was mentioned about the human remains that turned up there. It was a truly gruesome story.

[Jabra]

T.A.M.

Just like that, eh?! Thanks! That first video seems to show some 'internal' flashes going up the center before the big detonation at the bottom. You can't see that in the second video. That's pretty scary though...looks like there was a pretty good 'lean' starting to happen there by the end of it, but they had sufficient room. I think there's only about 4 feet of room between buildings in Manhattan! lol

[Jabra]

Thanks, also, bob kark.

But for some reason that link isn't sitting well with my browser, won't come up, I'll have to try it later.

[Katana]

How Not To Do It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJvaoDHO6l0&NR)

[Jabra]

Katana,

That looked like a horse gave the thing a kick...

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711160&postcount=653


Then there is the core wall at base and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), but never any steel core columns.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1710972&postcount=635


Here is rebar. No core columns tho.
spire_dust-3.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1665333&postcount=383


Here is its rebar. If it is not rebar, we all know it is not a perimeter column box column,
spire_dust-3.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1665203&postcount=370


The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713233&postcount=885


Belz: "Oh, and the "rebar" portion of the real core? Your theory makes no sense. 3" rebar on 4' centers makes zero sense"

Christophera: "Does not consitutute "addressing" an image which has an absolutely distinct quality in the realm of construction."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713144&postcount=862


There is reason for the supposed steel core columns in this image of the concrete core. Also in this image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)the supposed steel core columns do not show.

WHY? Because they did not exist.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712910&postcount=825


Gravy has not addressed the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)nor has it produced an image of the steel core columns from demo photos of steel columns. NOTE: the above image link should show some of the supposed 47, steel core columns IF they existed, which they didn't.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712722&postcount=782


Those are interior box columns and images of them above ground are what you need to show. Something similar to what I show of the concrete core at 400 feet off the ground. Similar to this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which also happens to fully show the core area and ther are not steel columns.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1712695&postcount=767


I didn't see spacings for 3 inch on that site. Very big and it was high tensile steel, very custom concrete. If it is not (note curvature of ALL the pieces) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) what is it?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711697&postcount=680


If it is not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) what do you think it is?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711688&postcount=678


Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714896&postcount=1050


They are different images. This of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS or spire and this, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) which is rebar.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714878&postcount=1045


That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) because this image of the SPIRE taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714202&postcount=1006


To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty. Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1714168&postcount=1002


You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here here (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713881&postcount=950


If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)and we do not, because they did not exist. Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713534&postcount=935

Just One Rebar Would Not Show
But we have eighty maybe, and/or we view nearly along a line of them
Some of the rebar does pixelate showing that it is indeed small diameter and not any column.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1713353&postcount=919


Dave_46: "You have posted this image, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) "

Christophera: "Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1717688&postcount=1257


The photo is taken at 7500 feet and a single 3 inch silhouette will not be seen, totally, but 80 or so, looking down a line of them some what, yes easily visible, and that is exactly what this picture shows, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1716719&postcount=1233


3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) (48 inch).
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1715540&postcount=1176


Hold up. LARGE error.
3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1715490&postcount=1170

Apollyon: "Also, you been told that there is no such thing as 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). First of all, rebar is denoted by imperial bar size, not inches and rebar is not even available in a 3" size as a standard. Rebar is also typically a mild steel, not a high tensile steel. And last and certainly not least, in regards to shear walls, UBC and IBC designates for a MAXIMUM spacing for rebar of 30". For areas in which winds speeds can exceed 70 mph (of which NYC is such a place) UBC and IBC designates that rebar be used on 15" centers. NOBODY uses rebar on 48" centers. So stop making crap up please."

Christophera: "Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1715148&postcount=1115


I forgot one real important thing. THE REBAR. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) You can't drill through rebar with carbide inserts. Once I remembered the rebar I remembered the documentary talking about the butt weld connecting the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar together and WHY only weldrs with a security clearance could be used. The special plastic coating on the rebar.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1715086&postcount=1099


Apollyon: "Says the guy who speaks of "high tensile rebar."

Christophera: "All pipe will collapse and fold easily when bent past 90 degrees unless very special measures are taken.
NOTICE:
The first, yes, ............. the very first time I've ever used a :rolleyes: "
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1718984&postcount=1357


Apollyon: Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used."

Christophera: "Actually I've answered all these questions. You just don't like the answers."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1720204&postcount=1485


Huntsman: "17 feet of concrete? No, not going to do it with a sheet. It takes a 1/2" sheet large enough to wrap completely around an I-beam (following the contours of the beam) to cut it. 4 lbs. of C-4 are needed to breach a reinforced concrete wall enough to make a man-sized hole. I'll double-check my figures (I keep forgetting to dig out my old engineer books at home) tonight, but no, it would take a lot more than a thin-coating on rebar every 4 feet."

Christophera: "Recalculate using engineering methods and you'll find that a much smaller amount will totally fracture the concrete wall if the explosive is centralized in the wall."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1720041&postcount=1430


The C4 was solvented and the bar was dipped leaving a light coating. The documentary actually mentioned the thickness issue (of the special "anti vibration/corrosion" coating) and that engineers had no problem with it.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1720030&postcount=1427


You need evidence of the steel core columns you support, from demo images at elevation, to make it stick. Notice no one has explained what these fine, lightly curving, vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1719028&postcount=1366


You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1721665&postcount=1718


You cannot be serious. You with no evidence acuse me with 2 web sites having a great deal of evidence of having no evidence. And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1721579&postcount=1702


It's rectangular tube shape with high strength concrete and high tensile rebar was very good torsion resistence, actually one of the real threats to serious deformation and failure.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1721457&postcount=1688


Apollyon: "Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used."

Christophera: "Do you really think that the 1,300 foot tall concrete tube had no foundation? And if you cannot explain what those fine vertical elements are where 47, 1,300 foot columns should be seen then the steel columns did not exist because other images where they should show also do not reveal them"
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1720309&postcount=1506


Woody–: "Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)when each pixel covers 3 feet."

Christophera: "Some pixels get it, some don't. Isn't that what we see,

and

They line they are of is seen looking somewhat down it, still, to the right we see them and they share a slight curve with a tapering shape.

I know why that taper is there. The documentary stated/showed that the cores rebar was welded on a slope and concrete poured at steeper inclines inside the forms. This was ordered by the engineers to eliminate the potential fracture line of opposing horizontal joints. the slopes made opposing sloped joints, better for torsion loads."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723995&postcount=1964


Then the tightly coiled elements that protrude from near the center, what can they be but rebar 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) The documentary was very intimate with compiled details of the towers construction.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723951&postcount=1944


The fact that I have an explanation for near free fall and pulverization nullifies the official lie. That explanation relies on available, raw information that any eperienced in material recognition in construction can readily identify. 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723942&postcount=1942


Sad that you don't have any real evidence.
Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1835073&postcount=2297


Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area in this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). This is an absolutely verfiable image in that it has no core columns. Anyone with experience in heavy steel and concrete can confirm that this shows what can only be rebar.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1874130&postcount=2547


Notice that what I have is many times more than what you have.
3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1858251&postcount=2476


Proof is so much better than theory.
3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1888901&postcount=2745


You've seen plenty of evidence to know that there was rebar, but have produced none from the raw images of the demolition to support the steel core columns.

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1883929&postcount=2684


This image evidences what can only be rebar, and it should show the supposed steel core columns but does not.
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.p...d=115687329 1
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1883267&postcount=2679


KingMerv00: "Maybe I missed out on this part of the conversation...why is 3" rebar important? I'm not reading through 67 pages of posts."

Christophera: "The big slowdown in the constructon documented by the video was the concrete core. Specifically the butt weld occuring every 40 feet in the special high tensile steel rebar used in the cast concrete core. Only welders with a security clearance were allowed to make the weld."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1881697&postcount=2654


Congratulations,

You have found the only piece of evidence that MIGHT be misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had steel core columns.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1892470&postcount=2855

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

[bob_kark]

Thanks, also, bob kark.

But for some reason that link isn't sitting well with my browser, won't come up, I'll have to try it later.
Yeah, I had a problem with it too. Certainly worth a read later.

[T.A.M.]

Jaazuuusss Gravy!

That is what I call the Mutha Lode...lol

[Mancman]

It is convienent to say that WTC 2 was damaged more but it is well known that the right engine went entirely through the building and most of the fuel did too. If the damage was worse then it would be because the core corner was taken out which would mean that the tower would fall to the south east, or more south as the perimeter wall was damaged on the south side.

Your argument is self defeatng.

You are 100% wrong.

The east wall of WTC2 had the most intense fire in that building, and the columns on that side bowed inward until they failed and initiated the collapse, that is why the building leant primarily to the east.

Yea, tell me about it. We need an explanation of why the top of WTC 1 fell south when it was hit on the north side. the school kids will lose all confidence in science if you try to explain with your logic.


You are 100% wrong.

The south wall of WTC1 had the most intense fire in that building, and the columns on that side bowed inward until they failed and initiated the collapse, that is why the building leant to the south.

[Z]

Well, after three weeks of careful searching, the closest to the aforementioned documentary I could find was 1983's "Building the World Trade Center" (http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html;jsessionid=4EDCD2A422D9CD6DCCBCE 8928C23F8AB?v=e762647ZdgCz83)

Unfortunately for Chris, it clearly shows that concrete columns were not used, but steel was.

ETA: In fact, the only mention of such documentary - including looking carefully at what aired in the time frame he mentioned on PBS - are in posts by Christophera.

In other words - someone is very confused.

[StoneWT]

ETA: In fact, the only mention of such documentary - including looking carefully at what aired in the time frame he mentioned on PBS - are in posts by Christophera.

In other words - someone is very confused.


In other words - someone is lying. Christophera is willingly fabricating documentaries in order to shore up his creative (false) theories. 3,000 dead and he can't be bothered to refrain from lying. :(

[kevin]

Well, after three weeks of careful searching, the closest to the aforementioned documentary I could find was 1983's "Building the World Trade Center" (http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html;jsessionid=4EDCD2A422D9CD6DCCBCE 8928C23F8AB?v=e762647ZdgCz83)


That film was included on the PBS website about why the towers fell. Not sure if they have it online anymore (they've updated the site for a new documentary coming out). I believe it was originally shown in the WTC visitor center.

[einsteen]

IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. Isn't it better
to concentrate on the facts only and try to explain them without rants and raves. I'm not
interested whether a flight got 444 passengers or 443, whether the collapse is 8.4 seconds
or 15 seconds, I would like to have proper explanations. The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.
The problem that we are having is that such a collapse is not something you can reproduce each day to
check your pancake or inverse CD theory. I'm always a pro-America guy, but if you are skeptical about
the pancake collapse you aren't automatically a ufo believer or think that Elvis is alive. I think that's
the medieval way of burning people who disagree with the offical thing. I don't believe in UFOs,
I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

[T.A.M.]

Einsteen, welcome to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your views, regardless of what they are, will be allowed, if not accepted.

I appreciate your post, and what it has to say. Here on the JREf you will find all sorts of people posting. I think what you are seeing is the result of frustration. Most of the people who post here have been doing so for a long time. Much longer than I. As a result, I tend to be a little more benign when the repeat offenders come in here and begin to throw their theories all over the place.

A skeptic, by definition, requires evidence to prove a theory or hypothesis. When certain Consipracy "Nuts" as you (and others) have dubbed them, come in here making all sorts of claims, people here will call them on it, and demand evidence. When they cannot provide reliable evidence, their theories are called "speculation".

This place is far from a "love in". If you have a theory, than present it, but be prepared (1) to back it up with SOLID EVIDENCE, or if unable to do so, then be prepared to (2) have it called "speculation" or worse.

You mention the "pancake theory". Interesting point. Earlier, perhaps about a month ago, I used it in a debunking of the CTers and got called on it by my fellow Debunkers. Most here do not believe in the "classical" pancake theory, as it is too simple a theory to explain the complexity of what occured. NIST itself has come out not in favor of it. The top part of the buildings were heavy enough, and accelerating enough, that the floors underneath the area of collapsed were collapsed almost like paper, offering little resistence. This is the reason why the buildings fell in "NEAR" Freefall speed, at least the majority of the building (part of the core seems to have stood for 10-20seconds longer than the building that surrounded it).

Anyone else with any thoughts?

TAM

[Woody-]

First of all welcome to the forum

I also don't believe in a pancake collapse,

Its not a question of belief, its a question of what the evidence and the laws of physics tell us.


I have several reasons for that which I will write down later.

Please do.


I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.

You do know that a "theory" in the scientific sense means something that is well documented and supported by nearly all the experts. It doesnt mean just a guess.


in physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable

Try reading the NIST report, they tested it throughly.

[WildCat]

IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. (etc etc)
First of all, welcome to the forun einsteen.

It will be easier if you just throw out your best evidence for con trolled demolition, if that's the CT you subscribe to. Too hard to handle 35 things at once. So what in your opinion is the single best piece of evidence?

[Brainache]

G'day Einsteen, welcome.
I have only been posting here for a month or so, but I did learn early on that this place is not like the Loose Change Forum. There is no moderator here hovering over a ban button waiting to silence dissenting points of view. There are however a large number of short tempered people who have spent months already debunking all of the main CTs around 9/11. So please don't be offended if someone jumps down your throat for proposing a "theory" which has been thoroughly discredited several times.
It is probably a good idea to try reading some of the threads about these ideas and if you find something that you feel hasn't already been addressed, by all means tell everyone about it.
These guys love to debate and none of them will flame you for holding an honest opinion no matter how much they disagree with you. They will however expect you to support that opinion with more than a video and a few comments of the-"It doesn't look right to me"-kind.
Anyway that's how I see it.
Cheers.

[einsteen]

I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction but if you have conduction you also have thermodynamic equillibrium which will keep the frame strong (and what about those people who say that the wtc is 6 times stronger than needed and the temperature at which steel weakens) The opposite is that there is no heat conduction which will certainly keep the steel frame strong and each floor will remain strong enough to carry the whole building

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

(and here I cannot post a youtube vid)

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible. In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ? Did they solve a coupled set of nonlineair PDVs to explain what happened or did they present a nice picture with a nice pancake story...

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

- I think there are tons of other things even when not looking at the other strange things surrounding the event (wtc7, strange ploom at bottom before collapse,
anomalies at the bottom of the planes etc)

But I think the last words are not said about this

[Z]

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

This just demonstrates that you really don't know what goes into controlled demolition. "Some explosives" would require so much work and so many people to plant - and if you're going to use explosives, why bother hijacking aircraft?

I'm afraid, at least on this point, that Ockham's Razor favors the official theory, not explosives.

[kevin]

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

The building didn't collapse immediately on impact because the forces pushing down on the building (i.e. the weight of the upper floors) was redistributed to other columns.

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on.

The floors don't carry the weight of the building, the building is designed to carry the weight of the floors. The world trade center had two sets of columns designed to carry the weight of the building. The outer skin was actually hundreds of columns, and a set of columns in the interior core space. The floors were attached to these columns and it was the columns that supported the building and floors.

Floors in buildings are designed to carry 2 loads, dead load and live load. Dead load is weight of office equipment and other inanimate objects. Live load is people moving around. The floors are not designed to hold up against an immense object (like the top 20 floors of a building) being dropped on them.

The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction)

Not sure what you mean by symmetry of construction, but in putting in columns for a building you size them for the load they have to carry. This means as the world trade center went up the columns got smaller. So the columns at the top could support less load than those at the bottom. By the time the collapse reached the first floor it was no longer the force of just the top 20 floors that hit, but the force of 109 floors.


- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?)

No.

, but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

Seeing people only proves that it was cooler in the area where there were people. Here's an analysis of the column temperatures in the north tower after 5400 seconds. You'll notice the area around the opening is fairly cool while many of the columns are over 800 C (the missing columns are ones severed by the crash).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944fa3ed51ad8c.png

And here is the analysis for the floor trusses. Again cool in some areas, over 800 C in others.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944fa3ed551479.png

- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction

No. In addtion to heat many columns were severed and the forces they were holding were distributed to other columns. So the frame was also weakened from the crash, plus the remaining columns were carrying additional loads, further weakening them.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

Computer models. Scale models were used in wind loading tests before the towers were built, and again for an insurance renewal (I forget the year that occured, it was recently though).

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

The official explanation for the collapse is this: Planes hit WTC, severed and damaged many columns (including removing the fireproofing from many of these columns). Jet fuel exploded igniting many fires of office equipment, carpet, wood desks, paper, computers, etc.... These fires further weakened the structure. The top floors then collapsed striking the floors and causing them to collapse too.

Controlled Demo explanation is: Wait for planes to hit, sneak people and thousands of pounds into WTC at floors of impact, work around fires, install thousands of pounds of explosive and escape from building. This of course includes at least foreknowledge that planes would be hijacked and many people killed when crashed into the building on a particular date. Not one person could reveal this knowledge before or after.

I believe I know which one occam's razor would find simpler.

[Woody-]

I'll hit a few of these, I'm sure others will be by later and give more evidence.

I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

All floors are not as strong as the first floor, as height increased the strength/size of the steel was reduced since there was not as much building to hold up. IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.

The twenty or thirty stories that fall one story have several times the energy that any one floor can support. This is the difference between a live load and a dead load. The best analogy I know of this is to take a 5 pound hammer and set it on your toe, that is no problem. Now take that 5 pound hammer and drop it on your toe from 10 feet up, now you have a problem.


- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.

The whole floor appeared to weaken all at once because it was like the straw that broke the camel's back. There was a gradual weakening as the steel heated up and then at some point the building system could no longer support the load. Then the top of the towers tilted to the side that failed first and that broke the remaining support structures and started the collapse.

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

You could always go read the report, its pretty detailed on how they tested.

Short version the tested recovered samples of steel, reviewed thousands of videos and photos, and ran a FAE (finite element analysis) computer model.


I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.

Try reading the NIST report, its much better than crude approximations.

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

No, what is complex is the effort needed to plant thousands of pounds of explosives with nobody noticing.

[T.A.M.]

Kevin and Woody...

Now look what you've gone and done...now there is nothing left for me to do...oh well, maybe next time...

:)

[Christophera]

IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.

Core columns, if they existed, were of the strongest structural elements in the towers. Why do no images of the demolition show these toppling outwards?

The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.

Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

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

[Woody-]

Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

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


No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yeah, I had a problem with it too. Certainly worth a read later.

What the hell happened to El Bucho?!

[Pardalis]

I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

The NIST report reevaluated the "pancake theory", as noted in their FAQ page

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Anyways, to even consider the CD theory is a complete waste of time. It is such an improbable theory, it goes beyond the realm of possibilities (the amounts of explosives needed, the time of preparation, the damage to the buildings required for rigging everything, the labourforce, the secrecy of the operation considering the WTC towers are working offices, etc.).

As one of the posters called Manny once said, let's focus on preventing these events from ever happening again by changing our ways of building scyscrapers.

Also, let the professional engeneers do it.

[Christophera]

No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.

You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.


core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

[T.A.M.]

He has proven there are steel columns in the core through his series of pictures Christophera, however, you have not proven there is a concrete core within, based on your one smoke obscured pic. You are the one claiming there is a concrete core, so it is up to you to prove it. That picture does not.

[Pardalis]

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

I don't remember seeing explosions, you must be refering to the fire that was expelled by the collapse initiation process.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible.

How so?

In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ?

Remember that the NIST investigation concentrated on the events leading up to the collapse, and the collapse initiation. They did not make a study of the actual collapse sequence (the collapse all the way down). This is a mistake all CTists do.

[Pardalis]

core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

I much prefer this Core (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002IU3?v=glance)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644fa6398851c1.gif

[Woody-]

You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.


core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Yes, I can say that. Your pic shows "something" in the cloud of dust that formed when WTC2 collapsed. It might be your "inviscrete" core, it might be the some or all of the 47 columns that were in the real core, or it might just be a thick dust cloud that looks like something solid.

There simply is not enough information in that pic to make a definite statement about what it shows. So I can't "explain what this is" and neither can you. Even the Hi-res version of that pic doesnt give us a better view.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc18.JPG

[Gravy]

Christophera,
Do you now agree that what you've been calling "3" rebar on 4' centers" is not that at all, but huge steel columns where you believed a concrete core to be?

[Christophera]

He has proven there are steel columns in the core through his series of pictures Christophera, however, you have not proven there is a concrete core within, based on your one smoke obscured pic. You are the one claiming there is a concrete core, so it is up to you to prove it. That picture does not.

As far as I know I've explained how the construction photos are misinterpreted and those explanations are consistent with the demolition images.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Something thing that must be done before any conclusion can be made.

You do realize there was a core do you not?

[Christophera]

Christophera,
Do you now agree that what you've been calling "3" rebar on 4' centers" is not that at all, but huge steel columns where you believed a concrete core to be?

This must be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) because the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is a 20 inch box column at the same distance 1 second before. The concrete was behind the spire and when the spire fell the rebar at the corner of the concrete core remained standing.

[Brainache]

This must be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) because the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is a 20 inch box column at the same distance 1 second before. The concrete was behind the spire and when the spire fell the rebar at the corner of the concrete core remained standing.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg
I must be missing something here because that picture you keep saying is 3" rebar on 4' centers has been shown to be the central steel support beams teetering momentarily before collapsing.
What makes you say it is 3" rebar?
I'm not an engineer so I guess its possible I just don't get it, but it really does seem to me that you are just lying to avoid admitting an error.
Is ignoring all contrary evidence and restating an invalid argument over and over again a strategy that works for you?
Are you just waiting for everyone to get bored with you so you can claim victory when noone will bother debating anymore?

[Alareth]

Repeating an action expecting a different result every time is the definition of insanity.

[Architect]

I'm not an engineer so I guess its possible I just don't get it, but it really does seem to me that you are just lying to avoid admitting an error.


I'm an architect who works on tall buildings and I do get it. It's steel and linings, not concrete.

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speeak to retired members of the design team and ask.

Oh, ah, no. Wait a minute. That would involve real investigation, not just googling....l

[Architect]

whether the collapse is 8.4 seconds
or 15 seconds, I would like to have proper explanations. The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.

<snip>

In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

Welcome, Eisteen, from a fellow newbie.

Any building is only designed to accommodate credible loads; for example here in the UK, we would take account of wind loads and fire risk, but pay little attention to earthquakes - in stark contrast to, say, California or Japan.

Until 911, or 11-9 as we prefer to call it in the UK, aircraft hitting buildings was not considered a credible risk. There is no requirement in building regulations/codes, nor is there an accepted way of modelling the problem.

Nevertheless the designers of WTC took account - at some level - of a low moving 707 bitting them. What we don't have are the calculations or any detailed breakdown of the assumptions made. It may be (and probably is) well wide of the mark in comparison to the events of 911.

I know you haven't mentioned this, but I give it as an example of how we really design buildings. Here's why:

Collapse of the upper superstructure onto a lower floor was not considered a credible load. Typically there are 3 ways of controlling fire in any building:

1. Automatic firefighting - In-house suppression systems such as sprinklers.

2. Manual firefighting - firemen and hosereels, in other words.

3. Passive or structural fire proofing.


Now in the case of the towers, (1) was knocked out by the explosion and (2) was more or less impossible because of access difficulties. (3) was severely compromised because (a) much of the structure was damaged and (b) fireproofing was dislodged by the explosion.

We therefore had a building which was failing at an accelerated rate.

Now, I'd like you to consider whether any designer would have ever worked on the assumption that the huge mass above was going to impact on the lower structure at an acceleration of 10ms-2 (give or take)?

Would it even be possible to design to resist such loadings?

The simple answer is no, and the CTers typically show their poor understanding of design and structural issues when they harp on about this point.

Yes, the intermediate floors offered nominal resistance. But we're talking milliseconds, not seconds. And that's why the collapse happens at something near free fall speeds.

But it isn't free fall, is it? Because if we watch the videos, we see that columns and pieces of the facade are falling faster than the main collapse.

Progressive structural collapse is physically possible, and is supported by the evidence.

[Gravy]

This must be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) because the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) is a 20 inch box column at the same distance 1 second before. The concrete was behind the spire and when the spire fell the rebar at the corner of the concrete core remained standing.
I don't understand. Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

[Belz...]

Congratulations,

You have found the only piece of evidence that MIGHT be misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had steel core columns.

Well, we've seen plenty that HAVE been misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had a concrete core.

The 2 columns toppeling have a base pivot point that can be projected downward at an angle to the lower left to show they are a part of the row of interior box columns on the left that have separated and are falling inward. What you confusingly refer to as hallways are simply rectangular spaces formed by the interior box columns and floor beams on the panel of columns we see that were the inner wall of the outer tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction.

If those columns were inside the core area, at that height, caught falling at that angle, they would be much further to the right and we would see more of them approximately parallel as they topple. With 47 , 1300 foot steel columns toppling in whatever directions, they would be a prominent feature in the images of the towers coming down. As it is this, is the only image that can me even misinterpreted to show "core columns" from the demolition.

Niice try Gravy.

I'd think that image is simply the same as yours, just better showing that structure, and I'd also think this is from the outside of the WTC, not the core.

[T.A.M.]

As far as I know I've explained how the construction photos are misinterpreted and those explanations are consistent with the demolition images.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not a tubular concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif). Something thing that must be done before any conclusion can be made.

You do realize there was a core do you not?

Not sufficient Christophera...you see:

If a friend comes over to my house and says to me:

"There is life on mars."

The responsibility is his to prove this is true, If I am to believe it. If he is an expert in astronomy, or astrophysics, or astrobiology (not sure if that is even a science yet) than his opinion might carry extra weight, but if not, he better find me some good articles written by such experts to prove it to me, or else he better have a martian standing behind him.

It is not enough for him, as a layman, to take out a telescope, find mars, then let me look while saying..."now you see those tracks...those are aquaducts...where there are aquaducts there are living creatures." It just doesnt work that way...

TAM

[Belz...]

Based on real collapses of steel and concrete structures. Which, by the way, never collapse all the way to the ground. The conservation of energy has them slowing, then deflecting.

When's the last time you saw 32 storeys of a building fall on the rest of it ? For all we know, it DID slow down, but the force coming down on the undamaged WTC was simply too great. Don't forget that, with each successive floor, the falling mass increased.

It is convienent to say that WTC 2 was damaged more but it is well known that the right engine went entirely through the building and most of the fuel did too.

Irrelevant. The point is that the plane hit a corner, damaging the structure, and at a lower point than the first tower.

If the damage was worse then it would be because the core corner was taken out which would mean that the tower would fall to the south east, or more south as the perimeter wall was damaged on the south side.

Since neither you nor I know exactly which columns or sections of the interior of WTC2 were damaged, I don't see how you can make this statement.

Your argument is self defeatng.

Yours is circular. Wanna dance ?

[Belz...]

Yea, tell me about it. We need an explanation of why the top of WTC 1 fell south when it was hit on the north side. the school kids will lose all confidence in science if you try to explain with your logic.

I wasn't trying to explain anything. I simply said that this wasn't a grade-school level problem, while you're trying to make it exceedingly simple. I would dare say, "common-sense" simple.

I only expected to see the 47 1300 foot steel columns if they existed, which they did not.

I can't even read what's written on the truck in the foreground. I don't know how you could expect to see individual columns on a section that's 30 pixels wide.

I expect you to be able to come up with images of some of the 47, 1300 foot columns clearly in the core area doing something. 72 pages and not one image that clearly shows this. Pretty bad,

If you'd care to stop labeling them "box columns" you would've seen them by now.

[Belz...]

IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way.

Welcom einsteen. That's a very bad way to start a post, though, as if JREFers don't use facts. Have you read this thread ?

The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.

I'd like to hear read why.

I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse

That's amazing, considering it's happened before.

Do you believe in gravity ?

calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.

Like evolution, right ?

In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

<smacks himself on the forehead> OF COURSE!! Gravy! Get me some steel! Huntsman! Get me some concrete trucks, please. Delphi! I'll need some office furniture. Steal it if you have to. Shrinker! Cables and electricity, if you will. Pardalis! I need two 767s ready to roll. I'll get some cranes. Bob_kark... just keep counting those socks, man.

Okay. We should have two brand-new WTCs in just a few years. Then we can test the theory.

[Belz...]

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on.

That doesn't need to happen. All you need is to bring the 78th floor (WTC2) to the point where it CAN'T handle the weight of 32 floors above it. Once the collapse starts, as someone said, the load that comes down on 77th will be 20-100 times greater than what it was designed to handle.

The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom.

They couldn't get to the impact floors. They can't tell us anything.

If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

Read my comment above. This assertion of yours stems from ignorance of the scale of the collapse.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

Maybe not directly in the impact hole, but you can clearly see several floors on fire above the impact point. WTC1 was basically on fire from the impact point to the top. That can't be good for structural steel.

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

Look at them again. Dust and debris don't explode, they flow from the building. That's not an explosive charge.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible.

What's this "faster than free-fall" you're talking about. Free fall isn't a speed.

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

Occam's razor isn't about simplicity, per se. It's about the theory that explains best while making the least assumptions. Presumably, the collapse of a 110-storey building will be a complex event.

[T.A.M.]

Belz:

Your description of Occam's Razor is by far the more accurate one, but for the majority who use it, it has often been "simplfied" or "modified" to mean..

"given two answers or solutions to a problem or scenario, the simplest one is the more likely to be correct, all other factors being equal."

This is the definition most go by, but your definition is actually a more accurate description of "Occam's Razor".

[WildCat]

I only expected to see the 47 1300 foot steel columns if they existed, which they did not.
Are you under the impression that each steel column was one piece of 1300 ft. long steel?

[Mancman]

Bolding mine. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf

About this quote you posted:

Finding 32: The building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the east and south at the onset of structural collapse. The tilt occurred toward the east side with the long span floors. Estimates made from photographs indicate that there was approximately a 3 degree to 4 degree tilt to the south, and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east, prior to significant downward movement of the upper portion of the building.


Bolding mine. This is interesting, as NIST also state that the North Tower top section also leant by 8 degrees before it began to move downward. Was an 8 degree lean the maximum strain that the columns on the other side of the building could withstand? Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this than myself (ie. any of you) can shed some more light on this.

[Christophera]

Are you under the impression that each steel column was one piece of 1300 ft. long steel?

Maybe you don't have the experience to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.

In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) was one piece and intended to resist torsion applied through the "flying" action of the tower faces in high wind.

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

[WildCat]

The concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)
You think that dark section is only 17 feet wide? How big does that make the buildings in the foreground?

[Gravy]

Repeat for Chris:

I don't understand. Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

[Belz...]

Maybe you don't have the experince to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.

Uh-huh. One piece core. Was it prefab ?

In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".

I assume you're again referring to that non-existent documentary.

[Gravy]

"interior box columns" (not core columns)Just a quick correction. The columns in the towers were either part of the outer wall, or part of the service core, hence "core columns." Just wanted to clear that up, since your documentary apparently didn't mention it. I hope you'll address my question above.

[kevin]

columns must be a single piece? that's a pretty silly assertion. Can you point to any definition of column that says it must be a continuous piece.

In reality the columns changed as they went up. For the non reality challenged here's the plan that shows the floors they changed at.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png

And here are the column types
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f50230717b4.png

[Christophera]

You think that dark section is only 17 feet wide? How big does that make the buildings in the foreground?

Intentional errors, .......... do not a genius make.

One side of that at the base on the short axis is 17 feet thick. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

[Architect]

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speak to retired members of the design team and ask.




Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?

[Architect]

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

Chris

You clearly don't understand basic structures, so stop making yourself look silly.

The outer structure, inner structure, and floors all act together.

Tell you what, go and look up "Why Buildings Fall Down" on Amazon. You'll find it an entertaining and educational read. I have one on my shelf at the office.....you know, the office where I actually work on the design of tall buildings......

[Christophera]

Maybe you don't have the experince to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.

Uh-huh. One piece core. Was it prefab ?

You must think Americans are stupid. In the same post you have shown that you are selective with information of all types. Above you question what I explain below.


In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".

I assume you're again referring to that non-existent documentary.

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577

[Christophera]

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

Chris

You clearly don't understand basic structures, so stop making yourself look silly.

The outer structure, inner structure, and floors all act together.

Tell you what, go and look up "Why Buildings Fall Down" on Amazon. You'll find it an entertaining and educational read. I have one on my shelf at the office.....you know, the office where I actually work on the design of tall buildings......

Yea they act together, with their individual attributes, which is what I've asked about and no one has answered, but you work to obfuscate.

Insincere and intellectually dishonest.

[R.Mackey]

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

[Link to signed statement mentioning neither (a) the name of the documentary nor (b) anything at all about concrete deleted]
We have only your say-so that this "structural engineer," assuming you didn't write that note for the teacher yourself, said either of those things. "Well I can't because he got scared." Sure.

You are a liar of the first order. Own up to your own delusions and stop bringing OTHER people into your intellectual wasteland.

[Architect]

Yea they act together, with their individual attributes, which is what I've asked about and no one has answered, but you work to obfuscate.

Insincere and intellectually dishonest.

Tell you what, summarise your question in a couple of sentences and I'll do my best to answer it.

[Gravy]

Chris, that engineer's comment was in 2004. I had seen several documentaries that detailed the construction of the Twin Towers by then, including the Ric Burns doc that I keep telling you to watch. Why won't you?

ETA: There is such an engineer, but since the note isn't notarized, we don't know that he wrote it, nor, as I mention above, does it mean a thing if he did. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery

For the third time:
Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

[Christophera]

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speak to retired members of the design team and ask.

Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?

These are links to engineering site that are not CT sites and they know about the concrete core. This site is not a CT site.

http://concretecore.741.com




You will notice some inconsistencies in the links below, but when looking at sites that talk about the supposed "steel core columns" you will se much more, and no images of the demolition show the steel core columns.


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

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

http://www.salwen.com/wtc/

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

http://www.didyouknow.org/terrorism.htm

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:vM8DqdXMklgJ:www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf+wtc+%22concrete+core%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=117&client=firefox-a

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:NvVcrCtfknoJ:www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf+wtc+%22concrete+cor e%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=130&client=firefox-a

http://www.downingjcr.co.uk/forum/thread.php?id=1&threadid=31071&PHPSESSID=7939780fe0b4d1e28139abdc619ae367

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j33/n27/3664



Below is a link to a page with usenet comments from people that know, one again there will be some inconsistencies but far less than those associated with people who think they know there were steel columns in the core area.

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html


How about a straight answer to these questions Mr. Fake Architect?

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?

[Christophera]

Chris, that engineer's comment was in 2004. I had seen several documentaries that detailed the construction of the Twin Towers by then, including the Ric Burns doc that I keep telling you to watch. Why won't you?

ETA: There is such an engineer, but since the note isn't notarized, we don't know that he wrote it, nor, as I mention above, does it mean a thing if he did. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery

For the third time:
Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?

I notice you don't have a Declaraton from a civil engineer saying there were steel core columns.

What photo?

[Architect]

How about a straight answer to these questions Mr. Fake Architect?

Sorry to dissapoint, Chris, but I'm a fully qualified architect and on the ARB register in the UK. I also work for one of a handful of UK practices who regularly undertake tall buildings work.

Now, I sense some sarcasm in your "question", so I'll give you another chance. Summarise into a cogent paragraph or so these structural questions which no-one has answered for you, and I'll give it a shot.

[Pardalis]

I think a psychologist would also be needed in this thread, for Christophera's sake.

[Gravy]

I notice you don't have a Declaraton from a civil engineer saying there were steel core columns.
I do. It's called the NIST report. You really should read it.

What photo?
You're pulling my leg, right? This photo, of course. Where are you claiming the concrete and rebar was in relation to this structure?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

[Woody-]

I wonder if he even reads all of the things he links to.

These are links to engineering site that are not CT sites and they know about the concrete core. This site is not a CT site.

http://concretecore.741.com




You will notice some inconsistencies in the links below, but when looking at sites that talk about the supposed "steel core columns" you will se much more, and no images of the demolition show the steel core columns.


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



The internal columns formed a core that took care of the weight.
95% of the building's frame was steel. Yamasaki discovered that steel was much stronger than it had been in the past. He knew it would be able to support the building for a longer period of time. By using steel, the tower floors were free of interior columns (With the exception of the core)
The engineers of Otis Elevators came up with a solution to this problem. By using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core, the shafts were strengthened enough that air pressure was not an issue.


http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first super tall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.
http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_plan.jpg
Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure.
http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_collapse3.gif
The central steel core carried gravity loads only.
But the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.
But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point - 800C.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html

The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over.Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00082.htm

The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel.



http://membres.lycos.fr/jcviel/BTS/sujets/2002batiment.htm

The design of the World Trade Center saved thousands of lives by standing for well over an hour after the planes crashed into its twin towers, say structural engineers. But the towers’ ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800°C – raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.


Seems to me that some of your links done really support your concrete core theory entirely.

[T.A.M.]

Christophera:

I mean no offense, but I see you now similar to an animal backed into a corner, lashing out with "links", and insults. These guys are tired of your stuff, Architect has offered you a chance to put your questions together in a coherent summarizing format and sumbit it here. If you do that, perhaps then he and others can answer them in a point by point form. If you choose not to take the offer, than you can't complain about the treatment here.

[sleahead]

Is not this site:

http://concretecore.741.com

your site, Chis?

[WildCat]

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577
:dl:

That is just too funny!

[Belz...]

You must think Americans are stupid. In the same post you have shown that you are selective with information of all types. Above you question what I explain below.

I don't think Americans are stupid. I think some people, of all nationalities, are stupid.

Now that this is out of the way, will you retract your claim that the columns were all "one piece" ?

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577[/QUOTE]

He says civil engineer.

Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?

[Belz...]

These are links to engineering site that are not CT sites and they know about the concrete core. This site is not a CT site.

http://concretecore.741.com

So, you're not a conspiracy theorist ?

[Christophera]

Seems to me that some of your links done really support your concrete core theory entirely.


I read them and accept the inconsistencies because the basic statements about the concrete are quite similar.

As no answers are forthcoming to my questions, my opposition in this thread can be considered weak.

[Christophera]

I don't think Americans are stupid. I think some people, of all nationalities, are stupid.

Now that this is out of the way, will you retract your claim that the columns were all "one piece" ?

This structural engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/harold.hill.dec.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2934&stc=1&d=1157305577

He says civil engineer.

Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?[/QUOTE]

Not for you.

[Christophera]

So, you're not a conspiracy theorist ?

The site is not a CT site.


I'm not a theorist, I have facts about all of my assertions and because things are so screwed up, they need explanations so theory falls short of describing my explanations of possibilities.

[Architect]

Chris, still waiting for that cogent summarised question, mate

[Woody-]

Chris, still waiting for that cogent summarised question, mate

I still want to see a floor diagram that shows where the concrete is in the core, and the stairways, and all the passenger and freight elevators.

And a CLEAR picture of the concrete core at any point of time would be nice also.(Ive seen those few dust covered low-res things so many times in this thread I almost want to puke)

[delphi_ote]

<smacks himself on the forehead> OF COURSE!! Gravy! Get me some steel! Huntsman! Get me some concrete trucks, please. Delphi! I'll need some office furniture. Steal it if you have to. Shrinker! Cables and electricity, if you will. Pardalis! I need two 767s ready to roll. I'll get some cranes. Bob_kark... just keep counting those socks, man.

Okay. We should have two brand-new WTCs in just a few years. Then we can test the theory.
Fine. I guess I'm going to have to go on yet another Office Depot/Office Max crime spree. Being a JREF Ninja really sucks sometimes. Maybe I can make it a challenge by using only weapons I find on the premises; stapler nunchaku, thumbtack caltrops, scissor shurikens, and of course a card board tube katana. I'll leave no trace behind except post it notes that say "JREF Ninja Wave strikes again!"

In the mean time, I'll be reading some motivational posters to focus my chi. Where was I... ah yes, "Strength" ...

[delphi_ote]

And a CLEAR picture of the concrete core at any point of time would be nice also.(Ive seen those few dust covered low-res things so many times in this thread I almost want to puke)
And why is it we have to supply said picture? Are we your secretaries? Is your dedication to "the truth" so weak that you sit around demanding others do your research for you?

[StoneWT]

Gawd, Christophera has now been driven to create fake notes from engineers to support his fake documentary.

Why are you driven to lie about a tragedy in which 3,000 people died? Christophera, have you no shame? You shouldn't be abusing the memory of the dead in order to give meaning to your life. Please stop dishonoring the dead.

[kevin]

engineer not only remembers the documentary but also the concrete core. We talked about it for 30 minutes then I told him what FEMA said it was. Later he would not include the concrete core in his declaration. People like you make good Americans afraid.

That's pathetic. Doesn't say anything about a concrete core. Doesn't say the title of the documentary. Doesn't say the year seen. Doesn't prove he's an engineer. Isn't notarized. (and although I would say this extremely unlikely for you to be this forward thinking, uses the name of the con man from The Music Man)

I've seen better in crayon.

[kevin]

That's pathetic. Doesn't say anything about a concrete core. Doesn't say the title of the documentary. Doesn't say the year seen. Doesn't prove he's an engineer. Isn't notarized. (and although I would say this extremely unlikely for you to be this forward thinking, uses the name of the con man from The Music Man)

I've seen better in crayon.

Registered Engineer 20186 is Harold Len Hill. Address can be found via the California registration listing. Enter the license number below.

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=ENG&p_qte_pgm_code=7500

I leave my statement as is because it isn't notorized and personally I'd like to see the paper stamped with his seal. But I retract the Music Man comment.

[Gravy]

He says civil engineer.
Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?

Not for you.
Of course there's a way to contact him.

Licensee Name: HILL HAROLD LEN
License Type: CIVIL ENGINEER
License Number: 20186
License Status: CLEAR Definition
Expiration Date: September 30, 2007
Address: 4358 MODOC RD UNIT J
City: SANTA BARBARA
State: CA
Zip: 93110-1830

[Gravy]

Now Christophera. Stop running away and answer my question. This is the fourth time I've asked. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1894143&postcount=2935

[kevin]

Of course there's a way to contact him. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=20186&P_LTE_ID=741

yeah, those stupid california registration links aren't postable for some reason. People will need to go to the base lookup a license and enter the registration number manually.

[einsteen]

English is not my first language as you understand, I made some mistakes in what I wanted to say.
I'm trying to go through this thread first but that's almost undoable, get headaches of it. you guys really
have a lot of energy.. I also am relatively new and have to read-in. With floor I actually mean a whole
floor including the surrounding stuff, i.e. also the columns, I mean in fact an etage. Ok, what I've
learned is that each etage becomes weaker if you go to the top, very logical of course but I thought
there was a translation symmetry when I looked at the pictures. Ok thanks for the answers everyone and
the lessons...

Some answers

That's a very bad way to start a post, though, as if JREFers don't use facts. Have you read this thread ?

I've read 30%, you're absolutely right Sir, that was a bad opening and introduction.

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?

No, what is complex is the effort needed to plant thousands of pounds of explosives with nobody noticing.

I've seen hours of Steven E. Jones (I don't know what his reputation is but he is no crackpot or something like that and a respected scientist as fas as I know) and he calculated about 4000kg that should be placed, 10 strong people can do that in 10 times. I cannot post URLs but there was a power-down also once, and what about damned wtc7 that is admitted to be a CD (this starts at the bottom of course)

Quote:
- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall.
This is by definition impossible.
How so?

With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed, to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated. If you have a set of vertical domino stones each stone (or group of stones) that hits the next one will be delayed a little bit, even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.

smacks himself on the forehead- OF COURSE!! Gravy! Get me some steel! Huntsman! Get me some concrete trucks, please. Delphi! I'll need some office furniture. Steal it if you have to. Shrinker! Cables and electricity, if you will. Pardalis! I need two 767s ready to roll. I'll get some cranes. Bob_kark... just keep counting those socks, man.

I would have said the same.. I understand that indirect proofs are also true, the sun exists because we measure it.. but could you point me to the NIST report that calculates the collapse time, we again go back to the near-free fall thing, sorry for that, I think it does not exist. NIST agrees with near free-fall they estimated resp 11 and 9 seconds for WTC 1 and 2, but they based it on seismic data and video analysis. Of course what else can you do and would you do if the empirical data is there. The spontaneous collapse theory should at least be consistent with the empirial data. Correct me if I'm wrong but what they do is postulating a kind of collapse theory and claim it must behave in a way that is consistent with the empirical data, that's the other way around.

That doesn't need to happen. All you need is to bring the 78th floor (WTC2) to the point where it CAN'T handle the weight of 32 floors above it. Once the collapse starts, as someone said, the load that comes down on 77th will be 20-100 times greater than what it was designed to handle.

Alright then. It carried the load for 30 years and 50 minutes... I thought there is video evidence of sound of explosions before the first crunch.

[Christophera]

I do. It's called the NIST report. You really should read it.

Uh, huh, I'm betting there are no declaratons for any of the signers, its' your "evidence", you know it, you check it out.


You're pulling my leg, right? This photo, of course. Where are you claiming the concrete and rebar was in relation to this structure?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

I guess you have no idea of how much garbage you forks create here.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

The shear wall is what is behind the interior box columns and floor beams in this alternate view of the spire. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) The rebar is in the center of the concrete.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2942&stc=1&d=1157324574

[Class]

Uh, huh, I'm betting there are no declaratons for any of the signers, its' your evidence, you know it, you check it out.



I guess you have no idea of how much garbage you forks create here.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

The shear wall is what is behind the interior box columns and floor beams in this alternate view of the spire. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) The rebar is in the center of the concrete.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2942&stc=1&d=1157324574

I have read this post and reread it numerous times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.:confused:

[Christophera]

Tell you what, summarise your question in a couple of sentences and I'll do my best to answer it.

I already did. These morons create so much garbage you lost track of it.

"Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?"

[Christophera]

I have read this post and reread it numerous times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.:confused:

Thank those that configured the forum software and it's quoting capacities, or,....... you don't know wtf you are doing, or the forks that constantly post obsfucational garbage have obscured it for you.

[Pardalis]

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?

What does that have to do with it? The fire bursting out you saw was caused by the air being expelled by the initiating collapse. These were not explosions.


With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed, to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated. If you have a set of vertical domino stones each stone (or group of stones) that hits the next one will be delayed a little bit, even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.

OK, I had misread. Of course it wasn't faster than freefall, but it was pretty close to free-fall.

NIST agrees with near free-fall they estimated resp 11 and 9 seconds for WTC 1 and 2, but they based it on seismic data and video analysis.

On what other evidence could they evaluate the time of the collapse? (as if it had any importance in their analysis of the structural failure)

Alright then. It carried the load for 30 years and 50 minutes... I thought there is video evidence of sound of explosions before the first crunch.

I haven't seen any.

ETA: you probably mean this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8028425005685958938&q=wtc+collapse), but it has already been debunked many times here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1512213#post1512213

[Gravy]

I guess you have no idea of how much garbage you forks create here.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

The shear wall is what is behind the interior box columns and floor beams in this alternate view of the spire. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg) The rebar is in the center of the concrete.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2942&stc=1&d=1157324574
Okay, just to be sure we're on the same page here, you agree that no 3" rebar on 4' centers is actually visible in this photo, correct?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

[Z]

I've seen hours of Steven E. Jones (I don't know what his reputation is but he is no crackpot or something like that and a respected scientist as fas as I know)

No, Steven E. Jones is a Brigham Young 'scientist' who claims to have evidence that Christ visited America and thinks cold fusion is easier than it actually is. He is the classic crackpot, regarding conspiracy theories and archaeometry, and 'respected' is not a term usually applied to him.

and he calculated about 4000kg that should be placed, 10 strong people can do that in 10 times.

Aside from Jones' credibility being in question, strength has nothing to do with how rapidly charges can be placed; and what does 'ten times' refer to? Minutes? Days?

Ten men could plant 4000kg, but not in any reasonable amount of time, at the necessary points to bring down the WTC.

I cannot post URLs but there was a power-down also once,

An alleged power-down, mentioned by a single person, unverified, and only in one tower; further, for an insufficient amount of time to plant 4000 kg of cutter charges on steel beams behind insulation, drywall, etc. After all, you also have to take into consideration that they would have had to cover up the evidence of their being there - which means replastering and repainting. Maybe even more work.

It's not like there were access panels that directly reached the steel beams, after all.

and what about damned wtc7 that is admitted to be a CD (this starts at the bottom of course)

Huh? I can't parse this one.

[Christophera]

An alleged power-down, mentioned by a single person, unverified, and only in one tower; further, for an insufficient amount of time to plant 4000 kg of cutter charges on steel beams behind insulation, drywall, etc. After all, you also have to take into consideration that they would have had to cover up the evidence of their being there - which means replastering and repainting. Maybe even more work.

It's not like there were access panels that directly reached the steel beams, after all.


But enough time to set half the detonators. the fist half was set after the lease was taken out. it is all detailed here.

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

[Christophera]

Okay, just to be sure we're on the same page here, you agree that no 3" rebar on 4' centers is actually visible in this photo, correct?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Correct no rebar shown there. But here there is rebar (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg).

[einsteen]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

[Christophera]

Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?


Architect, if you're that sure it's a core comprised of multiple steel core columns then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on this forum. Go and find images from the demolition that show the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Check the use net comments (http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html). Look at the links I've posted to web sites that that talk about the concrete core. Sure you will find inconsistencies but they are not so many nor as varied as those pages that try to describe the multiple steel core columns. And, the concrete core is supported by images of the demolition, steel core columns are not. Look at the scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg).

[R.Mackey]

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?
Hi einsteen, welcome to the forum.

I just wanted to clarify the NIST's position on "pancaking," since I've already seen this misinterpreted in four different places.

When the NIST uses the term "pancaking," you have to understand that the word has a very precise meaning for them, a meaning different than the general public understands. NIST concludes that WTC 1 and 2 did not experience "pancake collapse," but did experience "progressive collapse."

What is the difference? To NIST, "pancake collapse" means that the weight of one or more floors came loose, landed on a lower floor, the combined stress tore that floor loose, it fell on the floor below, etc. This is NOT what WTC 1 and 2 experienced.

Instead, what NIST is claiming is that, instead of each floor tearing loose, it sagged, pulling inward on the outer columns until they were twisted to the point of failure. The weight then fell on a lower floor, causing it to sag, buckling the outer columns, etc. This is their "progressive collapse."

To any but a structural engineer, the difference is subtle.

The next time you see anyone baldly claim "NIST admits no pancake collapse!!" without attempting to understand what they actually say, you may immediately sense their true agenda. This claim is being used out of context, as well as out of ignorance.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall.
This is by definition impossible.
How so?

With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed, to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated. If you have a set of vertical domino stones each stone (or group of stones) that hits the next one will be delayed a little bit, even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.
The bursting lower windows and assorted debris travel either (a) with the compression wave in the air contained in the tower, or (b) through the structure as vibrations conducted by steel girders. Both travel at the sound speed in their respective media, e.g. roughly 340 m/s in air and 5100 m/s in steel. Both are considerably faster than the speed of a free-falling object. Your premise is incorrect.

Likewise, there is no evidence of explosions, no recordings thereof, no admission of demolition in WTC 7. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, you are welcome to present it. You will be the first to do so.

[T.A.M.]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

Einsteen. Like I told you in the welcome post...without solid evidence, your comments will carry little weight. If you have someone who worked in the tower who says that the building was pre-rigged with explosives, in case of emergencies, than please tell us who he is...otherwise it is EXTREMELY weak evidence.

Beyond that, who would have permanent explosives planted in the building in case of an "emergency", and more importantly, what emergency would warrant having explosives preplanted in a building to bring it down. Who ever told you this is a liar. (and I dont say that very often).

TAM

[einsteen]

On what other evidence could they evaluate the time of the collapse? (as if it had any importance in their analysis of the structural failure)

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)


but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

[Christophera]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

There are a few accounts that mention built in explosives, or imply them. Try this article.

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

From Robert L. Parish Sr..

[einsteen]

Beyond that, who would have permanent explosives planted in the building in case of an "emergency", and more importantly, what emergency would warrant having explosives preplanted in a building to bring it down. Who ever told you this is a liar. (and I dont say that very often).

Agreed
I certainly don't believe it, I will ask him if he can proof it (he can't of course) he is a politician and businessman as far as I know

[Pardalis]

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)

but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

:confused:

Why would the timing of the collapse matter to the NIST?

It matters to CTists, of course... :rolleyes:

You got it backwards my friend.

[Mr. Skinny]

On what other evidence could they evaluate the time of the collapse? (as if it had any importance in their analysis of the structural failure)

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)

but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

Please define A, B, and C to help me understand this post.

Also: but it should be A <=> B means what, exactly? A is less than or equal to greater than (or equal to) B???

Makes no sense.

[Z]

Built-in explosives would not have lasted this long. Check the shelf-life of C-4, for example... or any other plastic explosive, for that matter.

The explosives would have to have been added in decades after the building were constructed, to work on 9-11. And none have been added, ever.

Definitely, there wasn't enough time in the single tower power-down to add explosives to both buildings.

In short, there were no explosives used in the towers in 9-11.
The only other possibility was if explosives were aboard the aircraft - again, no evidence of that. Further, the fireballs witnessed were entirely consistant with the fuel loads described on the aircraft.

[Woody-]

Christophera, any chance of us getting a floor plan from you yet. One that shows the concrete core, the stairways, the elevators, and the hallways.

And while you at it why dont you find us some CLEAR pictures of that concrete core.

[Christophera]

Christophera, any chance of us getting a floor plan from you yet. One that shows the concrete core, the stairways, the elevators, and the hallways.

And while you at it why dont you find us some CLEAR pictures of that concrete core.

Woody, any chance of us getting an image from the demo of even some of those 1300 foot supposed steel core columns? One that shows the columns at some elevation over the ground.

And while your at it why dont you find us the plans for the steel core columns so the confusion in all those sites supporting the steel core columns is cleared up.

All I can find is pictures of what must be concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg).

[Christophera]

Built-in explosives would not have lasted this long. Check the shelf-life of C-4, for example... or any other plastic explosive, for that matter.


C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

Clearly, RDX encapsulated ni a foot of concrete would have a MUCH longer viable life than the manuafactures cellophane package would provide.

The explosives would have to have been added in decades after the building were constructed, to work on 9-11. And none have been added, ever.

Definitely, there wasn't enough time in the single tower power-down to add explosives to both buildings.

In short, there were no explosives used in the towers in 9-11.
The only other possibility was if explosives were aboard the aircraft - again, no evidence of that. Further, the fireballs witnessed were entirely consistant with the fuel loads described on the aircraft.

This is entierly consistent with a high speed series of detonations of high explosives that are optimally contained and distributed in concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg).

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2944&stc=1&d=1157343754

And I've feasibly explained how it was acomplished.

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

[CptColumbo]

And I've feasibly explained how it was acomplished.


No, you've explained how you think it might have happened. With your little knowledge of explosives, demolitions, architecture, metalurgy, and structural engineering, plus your tendency to lie, ignore evidence contrary to your theory, and exagerate. I'm afraid I have to go with the people with credibility, education in the above areas, experience in the given fields, and evidence on their side.

[Woody-]

Woody, any chance of us getting an image from the demo of even some of those 1300 foot supposed steel core columns? One that shows the columns at some elevation over the ground.


I already posted some pics that showed the columns during the collapse back when I was asking you about the rebarb, here is one of them is again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

I know your going to call them "interior box columns" but whatever you call them they are part of the core.


And while your at it why dont you find us the plans for the steel core columns so the confusion in all those sites supporting the steel core columns is cleared up.

Ok thats easy.

Page 57 and 59 of the NIST report

Figure 1-3 and figure 1-5

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744fbb2bd8f4af.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744fbb2bdd45f2.jpg

All I can find is pictures of what must be concrete shear wall.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?


Ok I came through, now how about your floor plan and CLEAR pic of that concrete core.

[Christophera]

I already posted some pics that showed the columns during the collapse back when I was asking you about the rebarb, here is one of them is again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg

I know your going to call them "interior box columns" but whatever you call them they are part of the core.

Correct, they are interior box columns. You might try to term them as "inside the core" but the projection downwards at the angle they are at is going to put them as a part of the interior wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and falling inwards to the core area.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2945&stc=1&d=1157348186

Ok I came through, now how about your floor plan and CLEAR pic of that concrete core.

What you call plans I call diagrams and they are a part of the subterfuge or deception. Only construction plans will suffice here.

Well you've already seen the picture of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) I have so we are at an impasse on that issue.

To term the interior box columns above the same as the fine elements seen below is strictly an error. Meaning that the images support the concrete core and not the steel core columns. Consider the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) which has been scanned and available for inspection. It is pretty clear in what it says.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?

[Christophera]

No, you've explained how you think it might have happened.

No evidence as ususal.

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

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, have you no shame?

[CptColumbo]

No evidence as ususal.

Quite right, you've produced no credible evidence.

[Woody-]

Correct, they are interior box columns. You might try to term them as "inside the core" but the projection downwards at the angle they are at is going to put them as a part of the interior wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and falling inwards to the core area.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2945&stc=1&d=1157348186



Nice try at a hand wave, but the columns I was talking about aren't those angled things in the back, I was referring to the two straight up and down columns that still have the floor beams connected. That series of squares stacked on top of each other, you know the same squares that magically turn into 3 inch rebarb when you post a low res pic of the same thing. And since your 3 inch rebarb is in the core then those columns must also be in the core.


What you call plans I call diagrams and they are a part of the subterfuge or deception. Only construction plans will suffice here.

Ok, whatever you call them. I still want to see a diagram of your concrete core that shows stairs and elevators and etc. Heck, I wont even demand "construction plans", I just want to see how you can fit all the stuff known to be in the core in there along with your 17 foot thick concrete walls.


Well you've already seen the picture of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) I have so we are at an impasse on that issue.

I guess you dont understand what CLEAR means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=clear
easily seen; sharply defined: a clear outline.
easily understood; without ambiguity:

Calling it an impasse is just admitting you dont have any CLEAR pics of your concrete core.


To term the interior box columns above the same as the fine elements seen below is strictly an error. Meaning that the images support the concrete core and not the steel core columns.

I guess you forgot from way back in this post somewhere, I proved that each pixel in that picture was equal to three feet. Now its perfectly reasonable that massive core columns could show up on that scale but its ludicrous to contend that 3 inch rebarb would be visible at that scale.


Consider the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg) which has been scanned and available for inspection. It is pretty clear in what it says


Considering that you have no proof of where that came from I dont think I will give it any credibility. Just saying it came from the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" doesnt quite cut it.

BTW I cant determine if there is even such a thing as the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation". the only google results on that phrase point right back to this post.

BTWII you ignored another one of my questions, you even quoted it for some strange reason but didnt respond.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?

[Christophera]

So I have to rearrange the whole message for it to make sense. I just might ban this board!


Nice try at a hand wave, but the columns I was talking about aren't those angled things in the back, I was referring to the two straight up and down columns that still have the floor beams connected.

The supposed Core columns do not have floor beams connected. They are interior box columns if they do.


Ok, whatever you call them. I still want to see a diagram of your concrete core that shows stairs and elevators and etc. Heck, I wont even demand "construction plans", I just want to see how you can fit all the stuff known to be in the core in there along with your 17 foot thick concrete walls.

Take this of the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)image and compare it to your floor diagram and you'll see that there should be one ow more of the supposed "core columns penetrating it.

I guess you dont understand what CLEAR means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=clear

Calling it an impasse is just admitting you dont have any CLEAR pics of your concrete core.

I at least have an image of the concrete core. You do not of the supposed steel core columns nor have you offered an explanation for what is shown in the image of the WTC 2 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

Considering that you have no proof of where that came from I dont think I will give it any credibility. Just saying it came from the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" doesn't quite cut it.

BTW I cant determine if there is even such a thing as the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation". the only google results on that phrase point right back to this post.

Talk to seatnineb at the democratic underground. He found it in a British Library and scanned it.

BTWII you ignored another one of my questions, you even quoted it for some strange reason but didnt respond.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?

What has happened is that you have gotten the images confused. Here is the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) and no rebar is visible in that image.

I guess you forgot from way back in this post somewhere, I proved that each pixel in that picture was equal to three feet. Now its perfectly reasonable that massive core columns could show up on that scale but its ludicrous to contend that 3 inch rebarb would be visible at that scale.

No I didn't forget. You forgot my explanation. Or, dissociateed it. There are a hundred of so 3 inch objects somewhat in a line of the left side and so it is dark with them. The very pixelization of the image on the right bespeaks to the tiny size
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2946&stc=1&d=1157353029

[qarnos]

Clearly, RDX encapsulated ni a foot of concrete would have a MUCH longer viable life than the manuafactures cellophane package would provide.

What is your basis for making this claim? You have repeated it several times now but provide no form of evidence to back it up and absolutely nothing you have said leads me to believe you are an authority on the matter.

From this can I conclude that Plutonium-238 emedded in concrete will have a longer half-life than Plutonium-238 wrapped in cellophane?

You need to stop making assumptions about things which you clearly know nothing about and start providing evidence.

[Gravy]

Okay, Chris. Here's the photo that Woody and I have used:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf381d3.jpg

And here's the enlargement:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Here's your photo, which was taken about 1 second later, and which you have claimed in over 30 posts shows "3" rebar on 4' centers."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf6600e.jpg

And here's the enlargement:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf85bc4.jpg

Here's another shot from the same park as yours that shows more detail:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbf032378be.jpg

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

Or, you can finally be a man and admit that you're wrong.

[StoneWT]

Christophera believes that acting in a stupid manner somehow mocks the skeptics on this board. However, it merely shows him to be a buffoon. His behavior is another example of CTs lying for the 'truth'.

If a pixel covers 3 feet and an object is 3 inches (12-to-1), the object isn't going to show up. Christophera, I'm shocked that you don't understand this basic rule that even a middle school student would be familiar with. Is your life so meaningless that you are driven to create fake letters, documentaries, and dictionary passages? Place the 3,000 victims ahead of your desire for self-esteem.

[Z]

Explosives sealed in concrete would have a shorter shelf life than explosives sealed in the original wrapper. Why? Because the very process of opening the wrapper to transfer it would expose the explosive to oxidation, which would immediately shorten its total usable lifespan. Further, concrete - despite your apparent ignorance on the matter - is actually fairly porous. Not enough so to allow a human trapped in concrete to breathe, but enough to allow extensive oxidation to occur, thereby further shortening viable usage life of the explosives.

Christophera, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The usable lifespan of explosives cannot be extended beyond the shelf life of its original packaging without creating a perfect vacuum, and removing the explosive from that packaging within the vacuum. Any other method shortens, not extends, the shelf-life of the product.

We won't even get into the heat that would have existed in an enclosed space of this nature - heat which would only serve to quicken the break-down of the explosives.

One other minor point - there was no concrete to enclose the explosives in at those uppermost levels... or are you claiming it was build into the floors?


----

So far, here's the deal: Chris claims a concrete core - which does not appear on ANY floorplan or architectual layout. Further, images both of construction and of demolition clearly show the steel frame, but absolutely no concrete in the core. Yet he continues to insist the opposite is true. Further, he claims explosives sealed in concrete would outlive explosives sealed in cellophane packaging - clearly untrue. Additionally, he claims that 3" rebar exists - again, untrue.

Christophera is a childish liar, a sociopath, and, in general, a total moron. His theories are unworthy of notice, and his debate style vastly uninteresting.
Gentle Reader, consider for yourself: does a lie told repititiously become truth? Does this child - a child who has now demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in every subject he has discussed - even stand a chance of knowing the truth?

Any further replies to this child's rants will be solely for the benefit of you, the Gentle Reader. The willfully ignorant cannot benefit from truth, but you may.

[Mancman]

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

I assume you are reffering to the same plume seen in this video you have hosted on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVUMi_08CII

If so, the answer is simple. The narrator is wrong, that plume of smoke was a direct result of the south tower collapse, and did not precede it. It had nothing to do with WTC7. 911 review debunks this: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html

Also on youtube you have a video in which it is claimed the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds. You do realise that the collapses took much longer than this, approx 15-18 seconds? Have a look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp5.html
The middle photo was taken 8 seconds into the collapse, and the building is still approx 300m high.

[Woody-]

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

More of that magic pixy dust that Chris has, by changing resolutions he can change "interior core" columns to rebar and then by changing the angle he can change them both to a "concrete shear wall"

To sum up Chris's twisting in the wind on this one. He claims this pic is " 3" rebarb on 4 foot centers" and that the rebarb is part of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744f636ddc5213.jpg


Then according to Chris this pic shows us a "a 20 inch box column" and it is part of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744fc36e4568a1.jpg[



Then Chris claims this pic shows a "concrete shear wall" and it is part of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/996744fc37d54e7a1.jpg

But them somehow the pic that I found and Gravy made a close up of are "interior core columns" and not part of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Its amazing that photos taken seconds apart can be so many different things simply by changing the resolution and/or the angle they were taken at.

[kevin]

To sum up Chris's twisting in the wind on this one. He claims this pic is " 3" rebarb on 4 foot centers" and that the rebarb is part of the core.

I'm just amazed that you can post pictures in the middle of your messages. I mean christophera said that the stupid forum software required all images to go at the bottom. If he's wrong about that, how can I believe his photo interpretations?

[einsteen]

I assume you are reffering to the same plume seen in this video you have hosted on youtube:


If so, the answer is simple. The narrator is wrong, that plume of smoke was a direct result of the south tower collapse, and did not precede it. It had nothing to do with WTC7. 911 review debunks this:
Also on youtube you have a video in which it is claimed the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds. You do realise that the collapses took much longer than this, approx 15-18 seconds? Have a look here:
The middle photo was taken 8 seconds into the collapse, and the building is still approx 300m high.

No I mean those strange plooms that you see a few stories behind the demolition wave, but I agree that a progressive collapse is able to take that into accont, it's a minor thing which I ignore from now on (although the evil can be in the details), alright then, probably a wave in some core element, whatever.

That ploom, that movie. Are you serious ? Is this the scientific way of debunking ? What an insult to the people who noticed this, the brave Americans noticing in which way their country is under attack. A CNN frame. The south tower just collapsed ? What the ... There is a whole damned movie and both twin towers are standing ? 99.999999999% chance they are standing at that moment. And I didn't mention wtc7 in relation with this. wtc7 is a different story though possiby another 'smoking gun'

The 8.4 video is a little bit a kind of joke I made, NIST estimated resp 9 and 11 seconds, I will go into details later, found some serious stuff concerning this, also from the debunkers point of view.

[T.A.M.]

Probably the closest anyone can get to the oriiginal floor plans...but not much to go on...

Master Plans from 1963 of WTC (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html&h=3223&w=4241&sz=1206&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=vwbiEFr_LeApCM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2Bdrawings%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)

TAM

[Gravy]

No I mean those strange plooms that you see a few stories behind the demolition wave, but I agree that a progressive collapse is able to take that into accont, it's a minor thing which I ignore from now on (although the evil can be in the details), alright then, probably a wave in some core element, whatever.
It's "plume," and the phrase is "the devil is in the details," meaning that plans or explanations that seem simple when considered in a general sense can be quite tricky when looked at carefully. I do think "The evil is in the details" is a good description of 9/11 CTs, though. I get emails almost every day from people who believed the "inside job" theory in a general sense, but who now see that when the facts are examined, that theory makes no sense. Many of the 9/11 CTs seem plausible in theory. None are in fact.

That ploom, that movie. Are you serious ? Is this the scientific way of debunking ? What an insult to the people who noticed this, the brave Americans noticing in which way their country is under attack. A CNN frame. The south tower just collapsed ? What the ... There is a whole damned movie and both twin towers are standing ? 99.999999999% chance they are standing at that moment.
Argument from incredulity. You are wrong. Please do your homework.

And are you suggesting that the Americans who post here aren't brave, and that we didn't notice the way we were under attack?

[Gravy]

Probably the closest anyone can get to the oriiginal floor plans...but not much to go on...

Master Plans from 1963 of WTC (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/docs/page10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html&h=3223&w=4241&sz=1206&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=vwbiEFr_LeApCM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2Bdrawings%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)

TAM
Hey, man, I thought Dylan Avery purchased copies of the blueprints? Well, not all the blueprints (they'd weigh 650 lbs), but, like, some of them? We'll see.

[Christophera]

What is your basis for making this claim?

Common sense.

[Christophera]

Okay, Chris. Here's the photo that Woody and I have used:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf381d3.jpg

And here's the enlargement:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Here's your photo, which was taken about 1 second later, and which you have claimed in over 30 posts shows "3" rebar on 4' centers."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf6600e.jpg

And here's the enlargement:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf85bc4.jpg

Here's another shot from the same park as yours that shows more detail:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbf032378be.jpg

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

Or, you can finally be a man and admit that you're wrong.

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.

[delphi_ote]

Common sense.
You haven't demonstrated sufficient mastery of this concept to be using it to draw conclusions.

[Christophera]

Explosives sealed in concrete would have a shorter shelf life than explosives sealed in the original wrapper. Why? Because the very process of opening the wrapper to transfer it would expose the explosive to oxidation, which would immediately shorten its total usable lifespan. Further, concrete - despite your apparent ignorance on the matter - is actually fairly porous.

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation. It is a far better seal over long periods of time than cellophane.

And, collapse will not explain the uniformity of this, ever, you can't rationally do it without describing optimally placed and distributed high explosives

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2950&stc=1&d=1157386054