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

[Apollyon]

How intelligent.
Exactly. And that's the general impression people have of you in this forum. Except the preferred expression is more likely "How unintelligent."

[Pardalis]

Exactly. And that's the general impression people have of you in this forum. Except the preferred expression is more likely "How unintelligent."

Rather "insane", I'm afraid.

[Meffy]

Where's the smiley that beats its head against an Invisicrete wall?

[Stellafane]

I think it's pretty obvious that all Christophera cares about is being the last person to post on this thread. In his fevered little brain, that's his idea of victory. Then he can tell his friends (imaginary, because I can't believe he has any real ones) how he "shut us all up." God Himself could appear and declare "Christophera, namesake of my only Son -- you are wrong. No concrete core," and it wouldn't matter, he'd still post that one insipid link and one irrelevant picture. He'll be here forever because, well, it's not like he's got a lot else going on.

So Chris, one last time: You're wrong, what you're doing is unhealthy, please seek help. Beyond that, good luck.

[Apollyon]

Actually I've answered all these questions. You just don't like the answers.
You did not answer any of these questions. Therefore I will ask them again:

Provide proof there was a footer poured for the concrete core.

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

Prove the document you posted about the concrete notes is real and not a fake. If it is real, why does it make no mention of concrete for the core?

[Christophera]

You did not answer any of these questions. Therefore I will ask them again:

Provide proof there was a footer poured for the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) rebar was used.

Prove the document you posted about the concrete notes is real and not a fake. If it is real, why does it make no mention of concrete for the core?

Do you really think that the 1,300 foot tall concrete tube (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) 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.

I do not depend on the concrete schedule for evidence. I do not know it is real as I do with the images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

I do not depend on the concrete schedule for evidence. I do not know it is real as I do with the images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

Your picture is not acceptable evidence.
Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Pardalis]

Again Chris, excuse my ignorance but what the hell is a "concrete tube"? Is it an engeneering term?

[Christophera]

That's not 3" rebar. That's rebar for the concrete floor.

btw, where a picture of the mesh you claimed they used on some floors?

Do You really think a mesh of perhaps 10 gauge wire would actually survive the concrete surrounding it being pulverized? Or that if it did the photos would reveal the fragments?

[Apollyon]

Do you really think that the 1,300 foot tall concrete tube (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) 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.

I do not depend on the concrete schedule for evidence. I do not know it is real as I do with the images of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
You still fail to grasp that your pictures are YOUR interpretation and do not constitute proof of any sort. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You claims concernign the photos you link have no more validity than the person who linked to the photo of an alien spacecraft car.

And if you don't know if the concrete document is real, why post it as proof like you did?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do You really think a mesh of perhaps 10 gauge wire would actually survive the concrete surrounding it being pulverized? Or that if it did the photos would reveal the fragments?

Please provide evidence that the mesh used was 10-gauge wire. Please also provide evidence that the wire would not survive the collapse of the building.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Christophera]

You still fail to grasp that your pictures are YOUR interpretation and do not constitute proof of any sort. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You claims concernign the photos you link have no more validity than the person who linked to the photo of an alien spacecraft car.

And if you don't know if the concrete document is real, why post it as proof like you did?

All I said was that it showed that some floors had aggregate concrete and explained why. The photos confirm each other (http://concretecore.741.com). Something very important in the forensic analysis.

[NobbyNobbs]

Christophera--

1) You say that a concrete core is the only thing that can explain near free fall collapses. It occurs to me that a concrete core would give more resistance to falling debris rather than less, thus extending the time of collapse, not shortening it. (And don't say, well the core was pulverized. Your favorite photo is a shadowy figure you claim to be the core, which is still collapsing after teh rest of the building is gone.)

2) I don't see any evidence in the demo pictures of air conditioning units, desks, table lamps, decorative statuary, people, or Bic pens. Does that mean that none of these existed in the WTC?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

All I said was that it showed that some floors had aggregate concrete and explained why. The photos confirm each other (http://concretecore.741.com). Something very important in the forensic analysis.

That is insufficient to validate your claim on its own.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Christophera]

Please provide evidence that the mesh used was 10-gauge wire. Please also provide evidence that the wire would not survive the collapse of the building.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the mis interpretation of pictures from construction. If you do not like my interpretations then provide reasonable alternatives. Something I've been asking for since the beginning.

[Apollyon]

Do You really think a mesh of perhaps 10 gauge wire would actually survive the concrete surrounding it being pulverized? Or that if it did the photos would reveal the fragments?
iow, it somehow disappeared into nothingness which is why you can't produce any evidence of it?

[Meffy]

The photos confirm each other.
Here, I'll climb on your shoulders... good, now you climb on my shoulders... great, we've reached the top of the wall!

Not "the photos." Your interpretations of the photos. Your interpretation does not in itself count as evidence. You need sanity checks. Your interpretations so far haven't passed sanity checks. F'rex, claiming to see three-inch rebar in a photo when pixel counts -- which you could easily have done yourself; no special technical knowledge is required -- disprove your claim.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the mis interpretation of pictures from construction. If you do not like my interpretations then provide reasonable alternatives. Something I've been asking for since the beginning.


I am not the one making a claim. I am not saying that the interpretations of the photos are, or are not correct. I am saying that the photos are insufficient evidence. You request for an alternate theory, and if it fails or does materialize, your claim that that makes your theory correct; is a logical fallacy.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Apollyon]

All I said was that it showed that some floors had aggregate concrete and explained why. The photos confirm each other (http://concretecore.741.com). Something very important in the forensic analysis.
Thsi site proves your site wrong:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html

[Gravy]

Christophera, when can I expect that diagram of the many moving hallways in the towers?

[Christophera]

iow, it somehow disappeared into nothingness which is why you can't produce any evidence of it?

You are lost in a frenzy of opposition. The floors were concrete and everyone knows it. Spend some time looking for photographic evidence from the towers demise and find an image of a steel core column in the core area, That will prove your point, which you are failing to support.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...That will prove your point, which you are failing to support.

You are guilty of this.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Christophera]

Thsi site proves your site wrong:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html

Find a specific image there that shows steel core columns at some elevation above ground in order to substanciate that claim.

[TheFeds]

No. I found it on this site http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/. Alright; as a public service, here's that link without the Rule #8 violation: http://tinyurl.com/87xdq

Now give us specifics. Which photo are you referring to, and what do you see? In your response, address the resolution of the photo, and the resultant detail level and scale of objects.

Also, comment on the credibility of the photographs; did you take them? Did you modify them in any way?

[Gravy]

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the mis interpretation of pictures from construction. If you do not like my interpretations then provide reasonable alternatives. Something I've been asking for since the beginning.
Here's a "reasonable alternative" for ya, which has been posted here a number of times: the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496cc3612098.jpg

[Christophera]

Alright; as a public service, here's that link without the Rule #8 violation: http://tinyurl.com/87xdq

Now give us specifics. Which photo are you referring to, and what do you see? In your response, address the resolution of the photo, and the resultant detail level and scale of objects.

I guess you forgot what you are doing.

You are trying to find an alternative to this image. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

[mortimer]

For argument's sake, let's say that there was a concrete core with C4-coated 3" rebar at 4' centers. You say the government provided the C4 coated rebar. Please provide evidence that it was the government, and not anyone else.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I guess you forgot what you are doing.

You are trying to find an alternative to this image. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

No, TheFed was converting your link to one whose URL did not violate Rule 8. Tinyurl is a site for doing such things.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Christophera]

Here's a "reasonable alternative" for ya, which has been posted here a number of times: the core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496cc3612098.jpg

You shall have to explain exactly what is alternative about it.

You've got one picture from the construction that has been mis represented as showing steel core columns.

You also have a diagram that is a misrepresentation of the core. It is in fact the same one I used to draw the actual core of WTC 1 on.

[Pardalis]

Find a specific image there that shows steel core columns at some elevation above ground in order to substanciate that claim.

Chris, do you acknowledge that the posters here have shown you countless images from different sources and you have shown only a few pictures from your crappy site? Now tell me who is unsubstancial?

[Christophera]

For argument's sake, let's say that there was a concrete core with C4-coated 3" rebar at 4' centers. You say the government provided the C4 coated rebar. Please provide evidence that it was the government, and not anyone else.


A government entity built the tower.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A government entity built the tower.
What gov't entity was this? What is your source for making this determination?

[Pardalis]

A government entity! LOL

[NobbyNobbs]

Actually, it was an alien entity. It can clearly be seen in this photo...


ah, never mind.

[Gravy]

You've got one picture from the construction that has been mis represented as showing steel core columns.

Er, Christophera, nothing's misrepresented. That's the core of the building. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?

[Christophera]

Chris, do you acknowledge that the posters here have shown you countless images from different sources and you have shown only a few pictures from your crappy site? Now tell me who is unsubstancial?

I think they've shown one image that whould show the steel core columns if they existed. Another showed the interior box columns and hravy claimed they were core columns. They were not inside the core. They were along the edge of the flooring.

My site has atleast 5 images that show what can only be concrete and they show the areas where steel core columns would be seen if they existed. They are not seen.

[Pardalis]

Do You Have Any Other Evidence From Other People, (engeneers And The Like)?

[Christophera]

Er, Christophera, nothing's misrepresented. That's the core of the building. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?

Whoa. Lost in a generalization.

yea it is the core, but no steel core columns are seen inside it with th emass to qualify as such.

No steel columns are seen inside the core but a massive concrete block is seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2281&stc=1&d=1151001616

[Pardalis]

Whoa. Lost in a generalization.

yea it is the core, but no steel core columns are seen inside it with th emass to qualify as such.

No steel columns are seen inside the core but a massive concrete block is seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2281&stc=1&d=1151001616

How come you know what that picture is anyway, do you have a diagram of where this piece of rubble is situated on ground zero? How come you're so sure it's a part of any of the towers? Where is this picture taken from? Who took it?

ETA: Do you have any other picture of that same rubble but from a different angle?

[NobbyNobbs]

Wouldn't that be funny if it turns out all along that this is from WTC7, or something? Hehe.....

[DavidJames]

Whoa. Lost in a generalization.

yea it is the core, but no steel core columns are seen inside it with th emass to qualify as such.

No steel columns are seen inside the core but a massive concrete block is seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2281&stc=1&d=1151001616In addition to the rebar and concrete core, I also see Bigfoot and what appears to be Casper the Friendly Ghost. Could someone please add some arrows for me please.

[Christophera]

How come you know what that picture is anyway, do you have a diagram of where this piece of rubble is situated on ground zero? How come your so sure it's a part of any of the towers? Where is this picture taken from? Who took it?

Actually I do not know which tower it is. I suspect WTC 2 as I heard that people survived in the stairwell there. If they did it was becuase of the concrete. The size of the interior box column shows it can only be of the tower. No idea who took it.

I've done a search and discovered that a part of it is all concrete.

http://tinyurl.com/gvbsr

or it may be an altogther different stairway.

[azazal]

Whoa. Lost in a generalization.

yea it is the core, but no steel core columns are seen inside it with th emass to qualify as such.

No steel columns are seen inside the core but a massive concrete block is seen.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2281&stc=1&d=1151001616


Still harping on with a picture that's been disproven, why am I not surprised

[Pardalis]

Where did you take that picture? From what site?

[TheFeds]

I guess you forgot what you are doing.

You are trying to find an alternative to this image. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)You guess wrongly—which doesn't really surprise me.

You said that that was the source of the image. Is that your site, did you take the pictures? Do you have permission to modify and redistribute them?
Edit: You say later that they're not your photos.

Also, please link to the picture that depicts what you're talking about. (Not your modified version; the original.) Then comment as to scale and resolution. Give particular emphasis to the conclusive visual identification of structural concrete, versus other building materials. How do you know that it isn't part of the concrete floor?

[Gravy]

Whoa. Lost in a generalization.

yea it is the core, but no steel core columns are seen inside it with th emass to qualify as such.
Nothing general about my statement to get lost in. That's the core of the building. The core of the building cares not a whit what you think of it. The core simply is.

See, it's the part with all those steel columns sticking up. In the center of the building. With the cranes sitting on top of it. And the floors attached to it. That's the core I mean. Right there in the middle. Of the big building that's under construction.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

eta: the core simply was, that is.

[Pardalis]

Chris, where did you take that picture? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

This should be easy to answer.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually I do not know which tower it is. I suspect WTC 2 as I heard that people survived in the stairwell there. If they did it was becuase of the concrete. The size of the interior box column shows it can only be of the tower. No idea who took it.

In post #1454 of this thread, do you not say http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1720117#post1720117

...
It has been requested and I've said that I only know about WTC 1's core with any certainty regarding the hallway layout and no diagram of 2 will be provided.
...


If you only have certainity of WTC 1's core, why are you using a picture of, what you assume WTC 2's, to support your claim?

[Christophera]

Nothing general about my statement to get lost in. That's the core of the building. The core of the building cares not a whit what you think of it. The core simply is.

See, it's the part with all those steel columns sticking up. In the center of the building. With the cranes sitting on top of it. And the floors attached to it. That's the core I mean. Right there in the middle. Of the big building that's under construction.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879ebd4b.jpg

eta: the core simply was, that is.

Uh huh. Notice the steel in the center of the core is much smaller than that ringing the core.

[Pardalis]

Chris, where did you take that picture? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.....arrow.col.jpg

This should be easy to answer.

ETA: It looks like it's a detail cropped from a larger picture, it also looks video

[Christophera]

In post #1454 of this thread, do you not say http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1720117#post1720117


If you only have certainity of WTC 1's core, why are you using a picture of, what you assume WTC 2's, to support your claim?

They both had concrete cores but there were differences. The hallways were one of the differences. The other was that WTC was not strictly shear wall concrete constrcution. It was semi shear wall comprising many stacked cells.

How about an image from the towers demise that shows a steel column inside the core at some elevation?

[Pardalis]

Chris, where did you take that picture? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.....arrow.col.jpg

This should be easy to answer.

[Belz...]

No. I found it on this site http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/.

In other words you have only a hazy and fuzzy image to support your claim.

[Belz...]

It agrees with other images (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) that show the core walls and other parts.

Correction. You only have SEVERAL hazy and fuzzy images to prove your claim.

[Christophera]

In other words you have only a hazy and fuzzy image to support your claim.

No. I have at least 5 images all on a website just to carry the redindant proof of the concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They both had concrete cores but there were differences. The hallways were one of the differences. The other was that WTC was not strictly shear wall concrete constrcution. It was semi shear wall comprising many stacked cells.

How about an image from the towers demise that shows a steel column inside the core at some elevation?

If, as you claim in post #1454, you do not know the hallways of WTC 2's core well enough to provide a drawing, how can you claim that they are different from WTC 1's hallways?

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Gravy]

Uh huh. Notice the steel in the center of the core is much smaller than that ringing the core.
Got some specs on that, you Invisicretin?

[Pardalis]

Take a look at this one, look at the right.
http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/tn/wtc064.jpg.html

Or this one
http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc065.jpg

Still convinced it's the core?

[Gravy]

If, as you claim in post #1454, you do not know the hallways of WTC 2's core well enough to provide a drawing, how can you claim that they are different from WTC 1's hallways?

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Christophera is going to provide a diagram of the many moving hallways on each floor of the towers that run at crazy angles to each other. Real soon.

[Belz...]

concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg)

Nice try. Exterior wall (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711500&postcount=674).

I am a skeptic of the official story which you support and I have proven my version redundantly. You can only disprove my claim by proving yours, which you seem to not be able to even try without reverting to misinterpretation of construction images which is exactly as I said it would be.

I don't think you've proven it. But you've done SOMETHING redundantly.

If they were there the steel columns would show in this image (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg), and they do not.

From that distance, you couldn't distinguish a diplodocus from a brachiosaur, so I doubt your interpretation.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures misrepresented from the construction. My images of the concrete core during the demolition qualify.

No, because that can't possibly be the core. Again.

[Pardalis]

How about this one?

http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc072.jpg

[Belz...]

Your statment needs correction. The claims of steel core columns is the extraordinary claim because near free fall rates of fall cannot be explained by steel core columns, neither can the pulverizaion be explained. he concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) explains these things.

Okay. I'll bite. How doesn't the steel column theory explain the "near free fall" rates of collapse ?

[Pardalis]

Here is the complete site for all the pictures

http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/

(change**** for the four letter word)

[TheFeds]

Let's try something different. A blatant appeal to popularity! Yes, folks, it's time for a Google Fight! (world trade center "steel core" vs. world trade center "concrete core")

And "world trade center "steel core"" takes it...but not by much. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=world+trade+center+%22steel+core%22&word2=world+trade+center+%22concrete+core%22)

So, let's try again, after having refined our search! No more WTC 7. (-"WTC 7" for both search terms)

That's a little more lopsided, as one might expect. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=world+trade+center+%22steel+core%22+-%22WTC+7%22&word2=world+trade+center+%22concrete+core%22+-%22WTC+7%22)

So what's the point of this exercise in linking? Theorizing, just for fun—it's nice to be unencumbered by logic and reason, don't you all agree?

A theory: somebody got the concrete-cored WTC 7, and the steel-cored WTC 1 and WTC 2 mixed up, and Christophera didn't bother to investigate that for himself.

Another theory: the sites which talk about WTC 7's collapse also talk about concrete cores on the tall towers (but the search term unwittingly removes this); but why would sites that talk about WTC 7 also talk about concrete cores in the towers—oh, that's right, they're both items of controversy among Christophera's clique.

Results may not be quite scientifically rigourous enough. So don't believe it, if you don't want to—do your own damned research, instead.

[Pardalis]

When you see the context of the picture you keep posting, how can you still believe it's the concrete core?

ETA: and why didn't you post these other images? Why this only one you cropped?

[Christophera]

From that distance, you couldn't distinguish a diplodocus from a brachiosaur, so I doubt your interpretation.

No, because that can't possibly be the core. Again.

http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd


Belz, wrong twice

[Apollyon]

Find a specific image there that shows steel core columns at some elevation above ground in order to substanciate that claim.
Here are core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html).

[Pardalis]

http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd


Belz, wrong twice

My God, this is Godzilla raising from the rubble!

[Gravy]

I annotated this photo to make it easier for Christophera to understand.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449af064692be.jpg

[Christophera]

Okay. I'll bite. How doesn't the steel column theory explain the "near free fall" rates of collapse ?

Maybe Huntsman can explain what it takes to get 47 tempered steel columns to lose all their strength and fall freely instantly.

Here is a clue. Which is most dense?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd


Belz, wrong twice

If, as you claim in post #1454, you do not know the hallways of WTC 2's core well enough to provide a drawing, how can you claim that they are different from WTC 1's hallways?

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[mortimer]

A government entity built the tower.

Are you saying that, because the towers were constructed by a government entity (a claim you have not backed up by any evidence BTW), that necessarily all materials used in it's construction were manufactured by the government and delivered by the government?

[Pardalis]

This is one of the pictures on the site http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/


In red is Chris's "concrete core"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449af1f618447.jpg

[Christophera]

I annotated this photo to make it easier for Christophera to understand.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449af064692be.jpg

It is fairly easy to see that steel inside the core area in the constrcution photo is much smaller.

It is obvious from the images of the demolition that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has none of the columns seen in the construction because none protrude from the top of the core.

The steel in the center was elevator guide rail support structure which was in turn supported by the concrete core. The demoliton caused all the elevator support rail to be swept downward so does not protrude. Steel core columns would stand until they buckled or topple when unsupported.

[Pardalis]

Care to explain Chris?

[NobbyNobbs]

Actually I do not know which tower it is. I suspect WTC 2 as I heard that people survived in the stairwell there. If they did it was becuase of the concrete. The size of the interior box column shows it can only be of the tower. No idea who took it.

I've done a search and discovered that a part of it is all concrete.

http://tinyurl.com/gvbsr

or it may be an altogther different stairway.


Wow. So all this time you've been using this one picture as your basis of evidence, and you don't even know what it's a picture of?

Holy. Cow.

"Maybe it was WTC1. Maybe it was WTC2. Maybe it was one stairwell, or maybe it was another. Whatever it is, it must support my crackpot theory, because it's the only "evidence" I have!"

[Christophera]

This is one of the pictures on the site http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/


In red is Chris's "concrete core" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449af1f618447.jpg

Good image which helps to locate the remaining piece of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

[azazal]

http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd


Belz, wrong twice


I love using CTer stuff aginst themselves. From The looney fringe (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/xooooom/image007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gnn.tv/threads/6031/Former_Bush_Team_Member_Says_WTC_Collapse_Likely_A _Controlled_Demolition%3Fpage%3D12%26sort%3D_creat ed_dt%26dir%3DASC&h=633&w=410&sz=136&hl=en&start=209&tbnid=7AKULfCKBkmN7M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bcollapse%26start%3D198%26ndsp%3 D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN) we have a picture of that almost matches the angle of Christophera over used pic, and it looks like his core in the dust is the same as the tower can can be clearly seen between the towers.

[Pardalis]

Good image which helps to locate the remaining piece of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

How does this explain that it's a piece of the concrete core?

[Christophera]

Wow. So all this time you've been using this one picture as your basis of evidence, and you don't even know what it's a picture of?

Holy. Cow.

"Maybe it was WTC1. Maybe it was WTC2. Maybe it was one stairwell, or maybe it was another. Whatever it is, it must support my crackpot theory, because it's the only "evidence" I have!"

Not knowing which tower is inconsequential. I knew I would find out eventually. I recognized the unmistakeable interior box column on the right side of the core wall base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

What is most important is you have no evidence of the steel core columns from raw images of the demlition which woul definitely show them if they existed.

[Apollyon]

Good image which helps to locate the remaining piece of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).
Here are better pictures of the core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html)

[Pardalis]

Not knowing which tower is inconsequential. I knew I would find out eventually. I recognized the unmistakeable interior box column on the right side of the core wall base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

If you read at the bottom of this, you should figure out what tower that once was.

http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc-photos.htm

In light of the other pictures from the same photographer, how can you conclude that this is a piece of the concrete core?

BTW: it's the same piece of rubble as your own picture, but from an other angle.

[Christophera]

How does this explain that it's a piece of the concrete core?

1.) Process of elimination. No steel core columns are seen. where they should be according to FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif).

2.) The concrete core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is visible to the right of the interior box column.

[Christophera]

Here are better pictures of the core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html)

Perhaps you have pictures of interior box columns laying around after being cut, but you have no images of them, say 400 feet up protruding from the core.

To say they were "core columns", you will need to show that.

Here I show a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) 500 feet up.

[Pardalis]

Isn't that a steel core column?

[azazal]

Perhaps you have pictures of interior box columns laying around after being cut, but you have no images of them, say 400 feet up protruding from the core.

To say they were "core columns", you will need to show that.

Here I show a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) 500 feet up.

No, you are showing a tower, obscured by dust and derbies, as can be clearly shown
HERE (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/xooooom/image007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gnn.tv/threads/6031/Former_Bush_Team_Member_Says_WTC_Collapse_Likely_A _Controlled_Demolition%3Fpage%3D12%26sort%3D_creat ed_dt%26dir%3DASC&h=633&w=410&sz=136&hl=en&start=209&tbnid=7AKULfCKBkmN7M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bcollapse%26start%3D198%26ndsp%3 D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN)

[NobbyNobbs]

Not knowing which tower is inconsequential. I knew I would find out eventually.

Christophera, a few questions:

1) What source did you use to determine which tower it is?
2) Do you trust that source to give you that information?
3) Do you trust that source in regards to other information it may give?

[Christophera]

You are guilty of this.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description

http://tinyurl.com/l4n2v

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282&stc=1&d=1151006283

[NobbyNobbs]

Oh, one thing that may put this to rest. Does anyone have a link to a video, from the same perspective as Christophera's shadowy cloud/concrete core image, that may help? A still photo is more difficult to analyze than a video. the video will provide more references, time frames, etc. If it really is a building showing through, it will still be there after the dust clears.

[Apollyon]

Perhaps you have pictures of interior box columns laying around after being cut, but you have no images of them, say 400 feet up protruding from the core.

To say they were "core columns", you will need to show that.

Here I show a concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) 500 feet up.
Here they are. Core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html).

[Christophera]

Christophera, a few questions:

1) What source did you use to determine which tower it is?
2) Do you trust that source to give you that information?
3) Do you trust that source in regards to other information it may give?

1) http://tinyurl.com/gvbsr
2) Yes
3) Not necessarily.

[NobbyNobbs]

This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description

http://tinyurl.com/l4n2v

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.



This document was created less than 2 weeks after 9/11 and the very first sentence contains a factual error. What are the chances the rest is correct?

(Hint: how many people died in the crashes/collapses?)

[Christophera]

Oh, one thing that may put this to rest. Does anyone have a link to a video, from the same perspective as Christophera's shadowy cloud/concrete core image, that may help? A still photo is more difficult to analyze than a video. the video will provide more references, time frames, etc. If it really is a building showing through, it will still be there after the dust clears.

Quite a few have looked for video with a similar perspective with no luck. There was one from the west that showed the core of WTC 2 peeking out from behind WTC 1 for about 20 frames.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This Page Has A Concise, Accurate Structural Description

http://tinyurl.com/l4n2v

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel
uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282&stc=1&d=1151006283

The "World Trade Center" is a complex made up of seven buildings; two of which were the twin towers. This article does not state which building(s) it refers.

[Christophera]

This document was created less than 2 weeks after 9/11 and the very first sentence contains a factual error. What are the chances the rest is correct?

(Hint: how many people died in the crashes/collapses?)

Most sites describing the core are not perfect in their description. Here is a document which is quite good.

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pd

[Pardalis]

Chris, how can you conclude that this in red is a piece of a concrete core?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449af1f618447.jpg

[Christophera]

The "World Trade Center" is a complex made up of seven buildings; two of which were the twin towers. This article does not state which building(s) it refers.

This page,

http://tinyurl.com/l4n2v

says at the top of the page

ENGINEERS EXAMINE THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE'S TWO TOWERS

[Gravy]

It is fairly easy to see that steel inside the core area in the constrcution photo is much smaller.

It is obvious from the images of the demolition that the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has none of the columns seen in the construction because none protrude from the top of the core.

The steel in the center was elevator guide rail support structure which was in turn supported by the concrete core. The demoliton caused all the elevator support rail to be swept downward so doe not protrude. Steel core columns would stand until they buckled or topple when unsupported.
Feel free to provide evidence of all that.
In fact, I must insist that you do, Invisicretin.

[Christophera]

Chris, how can you conclude that this in red is a piece of a concrete core?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449af1f618447.jpg

It's relationship to the perimeter wall in the background. In the image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) the interior box column on the left locates the concrete wall to its right. The interior box column is visible in both images.

[Pardalis]

It's relationship to the perimeter wall in the background. In the image of the core wall at base the interior box column on the left locates the concrete wall to its right.

BS, show me REAL analysis.

[Christophera]

Feel free to provide evidence of all that.
In fact, I must insist that you do, Invisicretin.

It would have to be so if no steel core columns existed. The concrete core was the only thing to support the features inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[Christophera]

BS, show me REAL analysis.

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

[Gravy]

Quite a few have looked for video with a similar perspective with no luck. There was one from the west that showed the core of WTC 2 peeking out from behind WTC 1 for about 20 frames.
It's just dark smoke that was drawn down by the collapse. We see the same effect with both buildings. Invisicretin can't wrap his 17-foot-thick skull around that. Obviously, we'd see another HUGE debris plume if that were a concrete core, hundreds of feet tall and weighing thousands of tons, that collapsed. We don't see that, from any angle, because it's just dust and smoke that dissipates with the wind.

eta: Not to mention the seismic record we'd have of that secondary collapse.

[Pardalis]

analysis starts with diagrams, blueprints, texts from engeneers...

Not loose interpretations from a moron.

[Gravy]

It would have to be so if no steel core columns existed. The concrete core was the only thing to support the features inside the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).
As I said, feel free to provide evidence of all that. In fact, I must insist that you do.

[Christophera]

If, as you claim in post #1454, you do not know the hallways of WTC 2's core well enough to provide a drawing, how can you claim that they are different from WTC 1's hallways?

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1151007490

The hallways of the towers clearly show they were different. A single hall across the narrow axis of WTC 1 and 2 hallways across WTC 2 long axis is seen.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.

[azazal]

Oh, one thing that may put this to rest. Does anyone have a link to a video, from the same perspective as Christophera's shadowy cloud/concrete core image, that may help? A still photo is more difficult to analyze than a video. the video will provide more references, time frames, etc. If it really is a building showing through, it will still be there after the dust clears.


Not a video, but almost the exacnt same angle a few seconds before Chris's pic - From a CTer's site though (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/xooooom/image007.jpg)

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1151007490

The hallways of the towers clearly show they were different.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.
Feel free to provide those multiple moving hallway diagrams. In fact, I must insist that you do.

[Pardalis]

And please stop referring to that documentary unless it becomes available for every one to check out.

[NobbyNobbs]

1) http://tinyurl.com/gvbsr
2) Yes
3) Not necessarily.

Ok, good, this is a start. Can you help me to reconcile your answers to #2 and #3? In other words, why do you trust this source for this particular piece of information, but not necessarily for other information? Thanks.

[Christophera]

And please stop referring to that documentary unless it becomes available for every one to check out.

Sorry, I must explain where my ability to utilize these images originates and some one may remember it as well.

[Christophera]

Ok, good, this is a start. Can you help me to reconcile your answers to #2 and #3? In other words, why do you trust this source for this particular piece of information, but not necessarily for other information? Thanks.

The information I trust is an image of a concrete stairway (http://tinyurl.com/g2k38) and I haven't checked the rest of site out much.

[Pardalis]

Sorry, I must explain where my ability to utilize these images originates and some one may remember it as well.

What is the title of the documentary again? Who directed it, produced it? How can I see it to verify your claims?

[Gravy]

Sorry, I must explain where my ability to utilize these images originates and some one may remember it as well.
How about making even a shred of sense instead?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Most sites describing the core are not perfect in their description. Here is a document which is quite good.

August Domel, Jr., Ph.D., S.E., P.E. November 2001

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pd

Only this provided link, and one other, make this claim. This was already covered in this thread.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This page,

http://tinyurl.com/l4n2v

says at the top of the page

ENGINEERS EXAMINE THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE'S TWO TOWERS

What does this have to do with my comment on the snippet of article you posted? What out of all the text on this link am I supposed to take note of?

[Gravy]

What is the title of the documentary again? Who directed it, produced it? How can I see it to verify your claims?
Unless it's been destroyed, I'll be able to get a copy here in NYC. Just need to know the title. And how do you know you saw it in 1990, Christophera?

While we're at it, I'd appreciate you addressing my questions about the "dust core" photo you incessantly show.

1) When did it collapse? Obviously it's not there in a few seconds when the dust clears.

2) Why did its collapse not make any dust plume, much less the enormous one it would have had to make?

3) Why is there no seismic record of this collapse?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1151007490

The hallways of the towers clearly show they were different. A single hall across the narrow axis of WTC 1 and 2 hallways across WTC 2 long axis is seen.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Christophera]

What is the title of the documentary again? Who directed it, produced it? How can I see it to verify your claims?

Go dig in the diaper thread that you crap in. I've posted it at least 6 times. Once in the last page or 2.

[Curnir]

Go dig in the diaper thread that you crap in. I've posted it at least 6 times. Once in the last page or 2.

Real mature mate.

And.
NO freefall.
NO concrete core.

[Christophera]

Why are you using a picture from, what you assume, is WTC 2's remaining core to support your claims about WTC 1's core when you admit you do not know about WTC 2's core "with any certainty"?

Please clarify where the error is. Is it in post #1454, #1542, or post # 1551? Again, let me emphasize the importance of my request:

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Whose error?

The picture shows both cores.

Take the matter up with the mayor of ny city, he started the problem. He took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them. (http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whose error?

The picture shows both cores.

Take the matter up with the mayor of ny city, he started the problem. He took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them. (http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html)

Two cores? WTF is the second one? You said that you did not know the construction of the WTC 2's core. You said that you guess the picture was of the WTC 2's core, but you had been using it, and promoting it as WTC 1's core. This is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

1) Do you know WTC 1's core construction?
2) Do you know WTC 2's core construction?
3) Which picture that you use shows WTC 1's core?
4) Which picture that you use shows WTC 2's core?

The former mayor of NYC does not have to prove anything. YOU DO!

Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Beleth]

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with.
If you believe this, you're crazy.

[Pardalis]

You started the thread bubba. And btw, we did find a "realistice" explanation for the free fall of the towers, there was none. The rest of the thread is YOUR crap.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

Common sense tells us the world is flat. Common sense tells us the Sun revolves around the Earth. Common sense tells us that two identical clocks will tell the same time no matter how fast they are travelling reletive to each other. Common sense can be WRONG!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Chris, please listen to me carefully. As entertaining as this thread can be for rational individuals, if you truly believe in the C4 coated rebar theory, you really do have some type of schizophrenia. I'm not telling you this to be funny Chris.

John Nash honestly believed he had a roomate in college. He didn't. Think about that. His dillusions were/are very similar to yours. Conspiracy, cover-ups, secrets, big brother, etc...

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this Cloudships.

Schizophrenic delusions are the product of randomly misfiring neurons in the brain. This causes things wich have no relation to each other to get strung together.

An example of a schizophrenic delusion would be "I know that the driver of the #8 bus is an agent of the Invisible Robot Fish because he wears a plaid tie on tuesdays."

Christophera's theory, on the other hand, has it's own logic wich is internally consistent. He sees a shape in a photograph wich faintly resembles a concrete core so he assumes that the MIBs have been covering up the cores existence and he then proceeds to "fix policy around the facts" (to borrow another phrase loosely connected to 9-11).

He is certainly unreasonable and obsessive in the extreme and likely has some disorder wich may actually be schizophrenia. But this concrete core nonsense doesn't have the characteristics of a schizophrenic delusion.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no actual education or training in psychiatry. Just the experience of a family member of someone with the illness so any mental health professionals can feel free to correct me on this.

[Belz...]

http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd


Belz, wrong twice

That's the SAME PICTURE. Again. HOW CAN YOU see enough in this picture to conclude that it's concrete ? How can you tell what's in there ?

[Belz...]

Maybe Huntsman can explain what it takes to get 47 tempered steel columns to lose all their strength and fall freely instantly.

Here is a clue. Which is most dense?

I can understand that, in your magical little world, all columns have to fail "instantly". But in the REAL world, all it takes is a number of them failing, not all at once, until the core can no longer sustain the weight it was designed to sustain. At this point ALL OTHER COLUMNS FAIL.

And don't tell me you also calculated the rate of collapse of the core ?

[Belz...]

Good image which helps to locate the remaining piece of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

And, exactly WHERE do you see concrete in there ?

[Belz...]

1.) Process of elimination. No steel core columns are seen. where they should be according to FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif).

How can you tell the stell columns we CLEARLY SEE on that picture AREN'T support columns ?

2.) The concrete core wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is visible to the right of the interior box column.

How in the blue HELL can you see any concrete on that picture ?

[Belz...]

Quite a few have looked for video with a similar perspective with no luck.

Gee... you'd think that means something.

Perhaps you have pictures of interior box columns laying around after being cut, but you have no images of them, say 400 feet up protruding from the core.

That's an unreasonable burden of proof. How could you possibly spot them from that far.... oooohhh... yeah, that's right. You've got X-ray vision that works on pictures, too.

[Belz...]

It's relationship to the perimeter wall in the background. In the image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) the interior box column on the left locates the concrete wall to its right. The interior box column is visible in both images.

OF COURSE!!! THERE HAS to be concrete there because your THEORY states that the columns you see on the picture, which you've identified as interior box columns on about 112,947 occasions, HAVE to be next to the concrete core. You don't actually see concrete on the picture. Got it.

So... your interpretation that it's concrete is BASED on the assumption that it HAS to be next to box columns which you THINK are shown on the picture.

Weak.

It would have to be so if no steel core columns existed. The concrete core was the only thing to support the features inside the core.

You DO know what circular reasoning is, don't you ?

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

If scientists used common sense, quantum physics and relativity wouldn't be getting anywhere.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.

Which says nothing about the composition of the core. It could be made from a 26th level prismatic wall spell and it'd be the same thing.

Can you help me to reconcile your answers to #2 and #3? In other words, why do you trust this source for this particular piece of information, but not necessarily for other information? Thanks.

The information I trust is an image of a concrete stairway and I haven't checked the rest of site out much.

"Because THAT part of the site agrees with me!"

Not to mention the seismic record we'd have of that secondary collapse.

That's brilliant, man. Chris, can you explain that ?

ETA: Sorry for the spamming, guys.

[Moochie]

For *****'s sake, are you still arguing the same old porridge, Christophera?

I daren't guess at what your juvenile years were like.

M.

[Stellafane]

Common sense tells us the world is flat. Common sense tells us the Sun revolves around the Earth. Common sense tells us that two identical clocks will tell the same time no matter how fast they are travelling reletive to each other. Common sense can be WRONG!

Well, to give Christophera his due, common sense can also be correct on occasion. For instance, my common sense tells me Chris is a raving lunatic.

[Pardalis]

Let's speculate a moment Chris. Would it be possible that the piece of the "concrete core" you think you see on the center-left of this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b10e410243.jpg

be a part of the WTC3 building shown in picture # 2702 here:

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=2&picnum=37

Notice that here: http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc-photos.htm, it is clearly state that the picture is taken from the West Side Highway.

Here are diagrams and pictures of the WTC complex, and the West Side street to help you locate where WTC3 is/was located.

http://coe-dmha.org/Liaison/Vol_2No_3/Images/WTC3.jpg
http://www.mth.msu.edu/~ivanov/SatelliteP/Big/worldtradecenter_nyc800.jpg
http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/gallery/image23.php

Remember, this is just SPECULATION.

[Pardalis]

Wich would place your "concrete core" about here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b142ed5c6b.jpg

Right where WTC3 was.

[Christophera]

Wich would place your "concrete core" about here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b142ed5c6b.jpg

Right where WTC3 was.

Your red circle need to go 300 feet left.

This link shows the corner of perimeter columns in the background.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

and the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is inside it.

[Pardalis]

Your red circle needs to go 300 feet left. This shows the corner of perimeter columns in the background.

Bull ****

[Christophera]

OF COURSE!!! THERE HAS to be concrete there because your THEORY states that the columns you see on the picture, which you've identified as interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) on about 112,947 occasions, HAVE to be next to the concrete core. You don't actually see concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) on the picture. Got it.


Concrete can take certain shapes under conditions that steel cannot, and vice versa. The same goes for the light or reflectivity of the different materials. If you know what those shapes/appearances are, you can tell what the matieials are.

[Gravy]

Your red circle needs to go 300 feet left. This shows the corner of perimeter columns in the background.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

and the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is inside it.

The red circled area, with the core section in question, is within the footprint of the North Tower.

[aggle-rithm]

So typical of those who support the official core structure with no evidence. They get frustrated and spam the thread.

The Towers had concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com

Can you tell me why your link is more credible than mine? (www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm)

[Christophera]

Bull ****

Can you recognize a bull if you see one? Can you see anything that small?

The core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is inside the corner of the perimeter walls.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l

[Gravy]

Christophera, please explain to me what happened when that 600-foot tall mass of concrete collapsed.

1) How did all those thousands of tons of concrete – and all that steel rebar – come crashing down and turn COMPLETELY to dust without a dust cloud being created?

2) Why is there no audio, visual or seismic record of this cataclysmic event?

[Christophera]

Can you tell me why your link is more credible than mine? (www.johnmreese.net/911truth.htm)

My link has not the product of the mentality that has plugged a diaper thread, and, ........ my link actually has information on it.

[Gravy]

Can you recognize a bull if you see one? Can you see anything that small?

The core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is inside the corner of the perimeter walls.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l
It's part of the north tower core. Where's the concrete? Oh, that's right, it all dissolved, but electrical conduit remained intact.

And please answer my previous questions.

[Pardalis]

Chris, your total disregard for proof and analysis is appalling.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b22441965f.jpg

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/gallery/image23.php

[TheFeds]

Whose error?

The picture shows both cores.

Take the matter up with the mayor of ny city, he started the problem. He took the WTC documents and courts will not make him return them. (http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html)Read your own link. The mayor of New York's "World Trade Center files" are at issue. It says nothing of schematics, plans, blueprints or drawings. These are all things that an architect or an engineer will produce during the planning phase of any building. These must be filed with the city to earn a building permit. These are available from the permit office or the city archives. The mayor cannot simply take them without issuing an order to that effect—why was there no such order? Do you realize the controversy that would occur, should he make such a (probably illegal) order?

Perhaps the mayor happens to have copies of useful documents in his files, and won't return them. But he does not have the only copies. Now drop the pretense, and make a call to the NYC permit office, to inquire about the permits filed for the original construction of the towers. Again, for the cost of making copies and shipping them to you, they'll very likely be able to provide you with the permit submission from the late 60s or early 70s, which remains a matter of public record.

While you're at it, have you consulted the engineering, architectural and construction firms for corroborating documentation? They aren't required by law to provide them (though they are required to keep copies), but ought to make an exception for a nominal fee (to cover copying and mailing).

Take an hour of your time tomorrow, and instead of posting the same two pictures over and over, call the municipal and professional offices, and get your evidence.

[aggle-rithm]

My link has not the product of the mentality that has plugged a diaper thread, and, ........ my link actually has information on it.

How do either of those things make it more credible? As far as I can tell, your "information" came largely from unverifiable claims found on Usenet.

[Gravy]

Chris, your total disregard for proof and analysis is appalling.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b22441965f.jpg

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/gallery/image23.php
Pardalis, the core section and wall behind it do belong to WTC 1. WTC 3 would be well to the right of that picture, behind WTC 2. I'll post an aerial shot in a minute.

[Christophera]

Not a video, but almost the exacnt same angle a few seconds before Chris's pic - From a CTer's site though (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/xooooom/image007.jpg)

I looked around again to see if I could find one from the west that showed WTC 2 core as I've seen before.

I didn't find that again, but found this.

http://tinyurl.com/jdm9z

[Pardalis]

Let's take the two buildings (X1 and X2) as a point of spatial reference.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b24e9cf375.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b24ea28743.jpg

[Christophera]

Read your own link. The mayor of New York's "World Trade Center files" are at issue. It says nothing of schematics, plans, blueprints or drawings. These are all things that an architect or an engineer will produce during the planning phase of any building. These must be filed with the city to earn a building permit. These are available from the permit office or the city archives. The mayor cannot simply take them without issuing an order to that effect—why was there no such order? Do you realize the controversy that would occur, should he make such a (probably illegal) order?

Perhaps the mayor happens to have copies of useful documents in his files, and won't return them. But he does not have the only copies. Now drop the pretense, and make a call to the NYC permit office, to inquire about the permits filed for the original construction of the towers. Again, for the cost of making copies and shipping them to you, they'll very likely be able to provide you with the permit submission from the late 60s or early 70s, which remains a matter of public record.

While you're at it, have you consulted the engineering, architectural and construction firms for corroborating documentation? They aren't required by law to provide them (though they are required to keep copies), but ought to make an exception for a nominal fee (to cover copying and mailing).

Take an hour of your time tomorrow, and instead of posting the same two pictures over and over, call the municipal and professional offices, and get your evidence.

I've communicated with people who live in new york who have undergone those steps with no results. The PA refers to the WTC documents package as being the only one.

[Gravy]

Here's a different look.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b251365f6c.jpg

[Gravy]

I've communicated with people who live in new york who have undergone those steps with no results. The PA refers to the WTC documents package as being the only one.
If you want a copy of the blueprints, buy them from the Port Authority like Dylan Avery did.

Now, Christophera, how about your response to my questions?

[Pardalis]

Here's a different look.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b251365f6c.jpg

Gotcha;)

[Christophera]

Wich would place your "concrete core" about here:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b142ed5c6b.jpg

Right where WTC3 was.

Whoa, collectively deceptive manuvers. Your red circle shows this structure.

http://tinyurl.com/etcyp

not the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) of WTC 2.

Shame on all of you.

Move the circle left 300 feet.

[Pardalis]

ok my mistake, Gravy showed proof of that.


BTW, it's part of WTC1 Chris

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Gravy :
Here's a different look.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b251365f6c.jpg

Gotcha;)

You are correct, that is a different structure than this. (http://tinyurl.com/etcyp)

[sat556]

Ignore this :(

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b2ac89f0e7.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b2b801db3a.jpg

(I meant "gotcha" as in "you're right Gravy":D )

(edited to correct, yet again, the image)

[WildCat]

How in the blue HELL can you see any concrete on that picture ?
I can't see any concrete, but you can clearly see muscle tone and dermal ridges...

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b2ac89f0e7.jpg

(I meant "gotcha" as in "you're right Gravy":D )

You might want to give this line of denial up.

One lying is hard enough to keep together, 2, give it up.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b142ed5c6b.jpg

[sat556]

How in the blue HELL can you see any concrete on that picture ?

You can it see it much more clearly in this one :

[Christophera]

I can't see any concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), but you can clearly see muscle tone and dermal ridges...

Only concrete can have those smooth shapes.

[Pardalis]

You might want to give this line of denial up.

One lying is hard enough to keep together, 2, give it up.

WTF are you talking about?

At least, Gravy and I are trying to figure out what that (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is supposed to be.

I was mistaken and now there is no doubt that it's a part of WTC1.

[Christophera]

OMG. pardy pulled his image!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b2ac89f0e7.jpg

[Pardalis]

Only concrete can have those smooth shapes.

I see a cloud of dust and debris shadowing an unknown structure.

[Gravy]

You might want to give this line of denial up.

One lying is hard enough to keep together, 2, give it up.

Are you saying that your core section is NOT from WTC 1? How much do you want to bet? (Think hard.)

eta: And do you mean to say that you've been pushing this theory the whole time and you don't even know what BUILDING you're talking about?

[Gravy]

For the third time:

Christophera, please explain to me what happened when that 600-foot tall mass of concrete collapsed.

1) How did all those thousands of tons of concrete – and all that steel rebar – come crashing down and turn COMPLETELY to dust without a dust cloud being created?

2) Why is there no visual or seismic record of this cataclysmic event?

[Christophera]

WTF are you talking about?

At least, Gravy and I are trying to figure out what that (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is supposed to be.

I was mistaken and now there is no doubt that it's a part of WTC1.

The interior box column is unmistakeable as is the perimeter box column in the back ground (http://tinyurl.com/n849l). That size piece, only has a match in WTC 2 in the aerials.

[CptColumbo]

I didn't think it was possible. Not only have you provided no evidence of your theory, but you've provided a negative amount of evidence.

"You lose. Good day, sir!"

[Christophera]

For the third time:

Christophera, please explain to me what happened when that 600-foot tall mass of concrete collapsed.

1) How did all those thousands of tons of concrete – and all that steel rebar – come crashing down and turn COMPLETELY to dust without a dust cloud being created?

2) Why is there no visual or seismic record of this cataclysmic event?

1) The was a dust cloud. See this image of the core at its lowest (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.low.jpg).

2) There are visual and seismic records. You are seeing a visual record in the above link and the USGS has original digital seismic files they refuse to release.

Had they been released an "Fast Fourier Transform" would have revealed frequency domain signatures that identified high explosives in use.

[Gravy]

The interior box column is unmistakeable as is the perimeter box column in the back ground (http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc035.jpg). That size piece, only has a match in WTC 2 in the aerials.
You are wrong. The photo you use was taken by an AP photographer on 10/3/01 from West Street. It is not of the south tower.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b3050a704d.jpg

And by the way, your last two links didn't work.

[Christophera]

I didn't think it was possible. Not only have you provided no evidence of your theory, but you've provided a negative amount of evidence.

"You lose. Good day, sir!"

Sometimes the diaper only catches a fart.

[rwguinn]

You are wrong. The photo you use was taken by an AP photographer on 10/3/01 from West Street. It is not of the south tower.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b3050a704d.jpg

And by the way, your last two links didn't work.
Now see what you guys have done?
He's getting ready to cry.

[Gravy]

1) The was a dust cloud. See this image of the core at its lowest lowest (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.low.jpg).

2) There are visual and seismic records. You are seeing a visual record in the above link and the USGS has original digital seismic files they refuse to release.

Had they been released an "Fast Fourier Transform" would have revealed frequency domain signatures that identified high explosives in use.

Wrong again. Look at the first photo of the "core" in the dust. Look at the dust and debris cloud enveloping the buildings. Now look at your second photo.

How does it feel to be wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME?

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory DID release their seismic records. Arthur Lerner-Lam there says you are completely wrong, about the "core" collapse, and about the explosives.

[Christophera]

You are wrong. The photo you use was taken by an AP photographer on 10/3/01 from West Street. It is not of the south tower.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449b3050a704d.jpg

And by the way, your last two links didn't work.

Very good, fixed. What is that building in the center background with the pointed roof?

[CptColumbo]

Sometimes the diaper only catches a fart.
"I SAID 'GOOD DAY!'"

and

"Some a**h****** are always trying to ice skate uphill."

[Pardalis]

If I may, Gravy, let me repost this picture.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b326c58153.jpg

[Pardalis]

Very good, fixed. What is that building in the center background with the pointed roof?

Who cares?

The half-collapsed building at the far left, next to your "concrete core" evidence is WTC 6.

[Apollyon]

Can you recognize a bull if you see one? Can you see anything that small?

The core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) is inside the corner of the perimeter walls.

http://tinyurl.com/n849l
Can you not see your bogusness?

There are core columns here (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html).

[Apollyon]

Whoa, collectively deceptive manuvers. Your red circle shows this structure.

http://tinyurl.com/etcyp

not the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) of WTC 2.

Shame on all of you.

Move the circle left 300 feet.
Core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html) here.

[Christophera]

Wrong again. Look at the first (http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd) photo of the "core" in the dust. Look at the dust and debris cloud enveloping the buildings. Now look at your second (http://tinyurl.com/n9vzw) photo.

How does it feel to be wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME?

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory DID release their seismic records. Arthur Lerner-Lam there says you are completely wrong, about the "core" collapse, and about the explosives.

And the second (http://tinyurl.com/n9vzw) photo shows the dust cloud expanded from the first (http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd), exactly as would be expected. Billowing at the bottom, lower at the the top of the dust.

Sure, photocopies of graphs were released by the USGS, that is all tho.

[Christophera]

Core columns (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html) here.

I think the bogus qualities are clear.

Find the image link and post it in some form.

[Gravy]

And the second photo shows the dust cloud expanded, exactly as would be expected.

Sure, photocopies of graphs were released by the USGS, that is all tho.

I ask you again. In the first photo, what you claim to be a 600-foot concrete mass is standing. In the second, it isn't. There's video from a dozen angles. Show me video evidence of that collapse.

Stop whining and prove it, Christophera. Get the evidence.

That's right. The copies of the seismographs were released. And they show that there was no explosion, and no secondary collapse of a gigantic concrete tower.
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.

Now, how about WHICH BUILDING you're talking about. Do you agree that you are wrong about claiming the close-up core photo shows WTC 2?

[TheFeds]

And the second (http://tinyurl.com/n9vzw) photo shows the dust cloud expanded from the first (http://tinyurl.com/h6dwd), exactly as would be expected.

Sure, photocopies of graphs were released by the USGS, that is all tho.That is not all. This is not a photocopy. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html) This is not a photocopy. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf) By the way, don't try too hard to interpret the diagrams yourself. You're obviously not qualified, and you'll just data-mine them for another fallacy. Read the report, instead.

It took literally 30 seconds to find both of those with a search engine.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b38c9e9950.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b38ca2ae5d.jpg

Granted, by these pictures, there could have been some structure that kept standing a few seconds after the initial collapse. I think it actually denies your C4 theory, otherwise the "core" structure would have exploded as the collapse occured, right?

But we all know that the WTC was constituted by two things, an outer shell, made of steel beams, and a core, wether or not made of concrete.

[Christophera]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b38c9e9950.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b38ca2ae5d.jpg

Granted, by these pictures, there could have been some structure that kept standing a few seconds after the initial collapse. I think it actually denies your C4 theory, otherwise the "core" structure would have exploded as the collapse occured, right?

But we all know that the WTC was constituted by two things, an outher shell, made of steel beams, and a core, wether or not concrete.

The towers were "tube in a tube" construction. The concrete core minimized the mineral weight of the towers while maximizing the load bearing capacity of steel. 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.

The Delays and Paths (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703) page exlains the sequence. The 43rd floor was very heavy and the transition between the base of the tower and the upper half. That is one reason why the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is seen momentarily. It also served to get the steel disconected and down, away from the concrete so that when the concrete detonated it wouldn't push steel into the surroundings.

At this point, the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stands after the thermite in the basement took out a number of stretches of perimeter columns while the lower floors detonated.

Also the detonation system in the lower portion would have to be different as the work required to set detonators in the core was much more than the upper floors because of the core wall thicknesses. The different system is a gas initiation that will not react to radio frequency transmission and can be left for months safely.
Work on the elevators in the beginning of the lease that kept people from getting to jobs on loer floors was publicized. Three days before 9-11 there was a power down in WTC 2 for 39 hours, documented. No security. The cable upgrade shut down for can be assumed generic to the entire WTC.

[Pardalis]

In other words, Chris, why is the alledged "concrete core" still standing AFTER the collapse if it was imbeded with C4 explosives?

[Christophera]

That is not all. This is not a photocopy. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html) This is not a photocopy. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf) By the way, don't try too hard to interpret the diagrams yourself. You're obviously not qualified, and you'll just data-mine them for another fallacy. Read the report, instead.

It took literally 30 seconds to find both of those with a search engine.

Okay, you are right on that numerical data, same as that of the graph. However, the raw data of the digital file created by the seismometer is not available. People have tried to get it.

[Pardalis]

The towers were "tube in a tube" construction.

Again, what does "tube" mean?


It also served to get the steel disconected and down, away from the concrete so that when the concrete detonated it wouldn't push steel into the surroundings.

How considerate of them!

At this point, the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) stands after the thermite in the basement took out a number of stretches of perimeter columns while the lower floors detonated.

Of course you have no proof of any of that...

Also the detonation system in the lower portion would have to be different as the work requires to set detonators in the core was much more than the upper floors because of the core wall thicknesses.

Where do you get that?

Work on the elevators in the beginning of the lease that kept people from getting to jobs on loer floors was publicized. Three days before 9-11 there was a power down in WTC 2 for 39 hours, documented. No security. The cable upgrade shut down for can be assumed generic to the entire WTC.

Proof of a shut down in WTC1?

[Apollyon]

I think the bogus qualities are clear.

Find the image link and post it in some form.
I have.

Core columns here (http://images.google.com/images?q=wtc+construction&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images).

[Hutch]

OK, I was out of this thread, but catching up tonight I had a thought that might help out in concluding this neverending story (or at least rerouting it in a different way)

Now the WTC's, IIRC, were 208ft on each side, or a total of 43,264 square feet of area per floor.

If Chrisophera's 17' concrete cores are accurate, and if we figure the cores was about 60' on each side (total 240'-the 60 Ft. is an approximation, I do not believe Christophera has ever cited the dimensions for the core), the 240' x 17' equals 4,080 square feet, or nearly 10% of the total space for each floor.

Surely somewhere there are office diagrams and rental agreements that specifiy the square footage of the offices rented. if we subtract the known area occupied by the steel that we call the main support and Chris calls box columns, it should be possible to detemine if the remaining space would have accomodated that 4,000 square feet of concrete core.

Not sure where to loook and I start a vacation tomorrow, so I'm afraid I'm just an idea man--maybe not much of an idea, but it's the best I have at 8PM on a Thursday night...

[Pardalis]

Christophera, where did you get all that information about the detonation sequence?

I want to see the litterature that you have read that lead you to conclude to that sequence of events.

Let me see for myself where you got that controlled demolition expertise.

[Christophera]

In other words, Chris, why is the alledged "concrete core" still standing AFTER the collapse if it was imbeded with C4 explosives?

The core stopped the detonation sequence that it had carried from above, the floors column cutters (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) removed the outer steel tube inner supports, the interior box columns, while the thermite in the basement was initiating. This all started about the time the outer steel was down to the top of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) here.

After most of the steel was near the gound, the core followed it.

[Gravy]

Okay, you are right on that numerical data, same as that of the graph. However, the raw data of the digital file created by the seismometer is not available. People have tried to get it.

How about anecdotal reports, Christophera? Show me one that says that a 600 foot tower of thousands of tons of concrete came crashing down more than 10 seconds after the first collapse.

Show me the video evidence of that cataclysmic event.

Show me your evidence that the seismic reports are wrong.

Show me a photo of your mystery core.

Why are you posting here? Why don't you get some evidence to back your claims, or adjust your theories if you don't have evidence?

Why are you doing this? Don't you have a shred of self-respect? You didn't even know what BUILDING you were talking about all these years. Are you five years old?

[Apollyon]

The core stopped the detonation sequence that it had carried from above, the floors column cutters (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) removed the outer steel tube inner supports, the interior box columns, while the thermite in the basement was initiating. This all started about the time the outer steel was down to the top of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) here.
Except you can see the core columns (http://images.google.com/images?q=wtc+construction&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images).

[Pardalis]

The core stopped the detonation sequence that it had carried from above, the floors column cutters (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) removed the outer steel tube inner supports, the interior box columns, while the thermite in the basement was initiating. This all started about the time the outer steel was down to the top of the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) here.

After most of the steel was near the gound, the core followed it.

Could all this be possible without the use of explosives and the existence of a concrete core? Could some parts of the internal core of the tower have withstood the initial collapse for a few seconds then gave way? Could this be possible?

[twinstead]

I have NEVER seen anybody so adept at closing his eyes and handwaving away evidence contrary to his opinion. It is truly amazing.

christophera, you are the quintessential rabid conspiracy theorist. A textbook case of blind ideology, you can wear the badge "woo woo" with pride, my man.

Rock on!

[Christophera]

I have.

Core columns here (http://images.google.com/images?q=wtc+construction&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images).

On that page of images I see one of the tower tops during construction. Those columns ringing the core are the only heavy steel seen. Here is a zoomed image that is notated.

interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)

[Christophera]

You didn't even know what BUILDING you were talking about all these years. Are you five years old?

I explained that I was not sure what tower the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) image was from. It is the only image that has not been well identified. The images so far place it too far south to be of the north tower.

[Christophera]

Show me the video evidence of that cataclysmic event.

Show me your evidence that the seismic reports are wrong.

Show me a photo of your mystery core.

Why are you posting here? Why don't you get some evidence to back your claims, or adjust your theories if you don't have evidence?


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 (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.

[Gravy]

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 (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
Websites do not an argument make. You don't understand that you need evidence that supports your claims. You don't have any. Your websites and posts here are solid drivel. You've been shown to be wrong every single time. For that claim, I have abundant evidence.

Every single time, Christophera. You haven't been right once.

And you still think you're right. You're a very sad, delusional person. Please get help.


edit: grammar

[Christophera]

Could all this be possible without the use of explosives and the existence of a concrete core? Could some parts of the internal core of the tower have withstood the initial collapse for a few seconds then gave way? Could this be possible?

That (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) lower part of the core was so strong that even a demo had to wait a second to get the steel out of the way.

btw, In answer to your earlier question, I think I skipped answering, the outer tube is a steel framework and the inner is a concrete tube.

[Apollyon]

On that page of images I see one of the tower tops during construction. Those columns ringing the core are the only heavy steel seen. Here is a zoomed image that is notated.

interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)
Nope. Core columns (http://images.google.com/images?q=wtc+construction&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images).

[Pardalis]

That (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) lower part of the core was so strong that even a demo had to wait a second to get the steel out of the way.

OK, but where do you get that? How have you come to this conclusion?

btw, In answer to your earlier question, I think I skipped answering, the outer tube is a steel framework and the inner is a concrete tube.

I'm just wondering if "tube" is an apropriate term. Does it have a special meaning in engeneering?

[Christophera]

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. 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.

Websites do not an argument make. You don't understand that you need evidence that supports your claims. You don't have any. Your websites and posts here are solid drivel. You've been shown to be wrong every single time.

Every single time, Christophera. You haven't been right once.

And you still think you're right. You're a very sad, delusional person. Please get help.

You think youv'e conducted an argument.

A thought alone, because you've produced no qualified evidence and your reasoning in attempt to dismiss raw evidence is flawed and deceptive. Your disatisfaction makes clear, that you are not a gracious loser.

[Hellbound]

Maybe Huntsman can explain what it takes to get 47 tempered steel columns to lose all their strength and fall freely instantly.

Here is a clue. Which is most dense?

I can, actually.

Because the columns were tack welded together, so the joins were weaker than the steel.

The steel gave when several floors fell onto the damaged sections, and from there it's like toppling building blocks.

You can do an experiment at home. Take a board, and stack ten wooden blocks (the rectangular kind) up longways to make columns. Support your board on theose columns. Add weight to the top. If you have it balanced right, the columns are fairly sturdy because of the weight pressing them together. You really only need very light support (small pieces of tape, say) just to make sure the wooden blocks are lined up with each other.

Now, get a coupl eof the blocks (say the ones about 80% of the way up) and replace them with something else, rolls of paper, say, to simulate the damaged steel columns. Then put your weight back on.

Let me know what happens.

Now, your reinforced concrete is a whole different story. That's more like using columns made of modeling clay, wrapped with chicken wire.

The steel columns are, typically, less likely to fail due to most causes, but when they fail, that's it. It's gone.

[Hellbound]

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

No.

REAL analysis starts with evidence, then does the math.

Common Sense is, at best, only a starting point, and even then it's often not the best one.

[Hellbound]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1151007490

The hallways of the towers clearly show they were different. A single hall across the narrow axis of WTC 1 and 2 hallways across WTC 2 long axis is seen.

I remember the documentary explaining how difficult it was to rent space in WTC 1 because access across the core was so bad.

Um, you realize the pic you posted here does not suppor thte idea of a hallway?

Do the scaling.

That "single central hallway" you mention is the same all the way to the top (where you can still see the steel core columns above the current upper level). Not to mention that that single hallway would be on the order of 20 feet across.

[TheFeds]

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 (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing).

[Christophera]

I can, actually.

Because the columns were tack welded together, so the joins were weaker than the steel.


Below is a 100% butt weld joining an interior box column. To the right and above the floor beam intersection is an area discolored from being heated then ground level with the surrounding columns face.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2287&stc=1&d=1151031086

That is actually laughable. They couldn't be called core columns because they are not continuos.

[NobbyNobbs]

Why not use common sense? That is what REAL analysis starts with. Oh ,...... sorry, I forgot, that's why you are having a problem.

Let me give you what I wrote in another forum on the subject of common sense.

And here is exactly the problem with this "innate sense": it doesn't work. If someone tried to explain quantum physics to you, it defies common sense. Yet experiments again and again bear out the theory.

You mention centrifugal motion. This is a perfect example. Someone traveling in a curved line could swear that there's a force pushing or pulling them outward. Their "innate sense" that leads them to understand this is a law of physics is leading them wrong. There is no force pushing them outward, despite that "feeling". This is why science doesn't depend on feelings or innate senses....it depends on experimental data.


Later on....
The information I trust is an image of a concrete stairway and I haven't checked the rest of site out much

Why do you trust that image in particular? What about it makes it trustworthy?

Later still....
2) There are visual and seismic records. You are seeing a visual record in the above link and the USGS has original digital seismic files they refuse to release.

If they haven't released these files, how do you know they exist?

[Christophera]

Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing).

This sounds like a fun nonsensical project. Consider that the lines viewed are not their true length. Meaning you've just invented a "photoshop moment", if one is into wasting time.

[RandFan]

This sounds like a fun nonsensical project. Consider that the lines viewed are not their true length. Meaning you've just invented a "photoshop moment", if one is into wasting time. ??? Are you serious. Here you make all of the claims of how big things are based on looking at them and now you are saying that is not possible? Wow, that's quite an admission.

[Christophera]

Why do you trust that image in particular? What about it makes it trustworthy?

Can we believe noobers is asking this? I trust the image of a concrete stair to be a concrete stair. Simple thing.

If they haven't released these files, how do you know they exist?

I have associates that are scientists who tried to get the raw seismic files. they were able to get USGS seismometer output files of quarry blasts but not 9-11.

[RandFan]

Take that picture, at its current size, and draw on it a dimenson arrow indicating 4', positioned as if it were at the distance of the WTC building. To demonstrate, I'll draw a dimension arrow for the vehicle in the foreground (it's very close to 6.25' tall), so that you know how to draw dimension marks. You draw a dimension mark across the 4' rebar-centres, or, if they're not visible in the photograph, draw a 4' dimension positioned where they would have been (if the tower were not collapsing). That's a good empirical way to demonstrate size. The vehicle gives us scale. This would be allowed in a court of law.

[Christophera]

No.

REAL analysis starts with evidence, then does the math.

Common Sense is, at best, only a starting point, and even then it's often not the best one.

You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.

[RandFan]

You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.? WTF? What is "algebraic assimilation"? I'm guessing that you made that up?

[Christophera]

That's a good empirical way to demonstrate size. The vehicle gives us scale. This would be allowed in a court of law.

The spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) can be used to scale it at the same distance. It is a minimum of 14 inches thick.

[RandFan]

The spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg) can be used to scale it at the same distance. It is a minimum of 14 inches thick. So draw the damn line.

[Christophera]

? WTF? What is "algebraic assimilation"? I'm guessing that you made that up?

They are 2 words that can be used together. If you can't figure out what they mean, you probably tried to learn algebra in school.

[Christophera]

So draw the damn line.

It is too short and the true length has to be calculated from the measurement.

It is quite a bit easier, and more effective to think about what other structures might be present 400 feet off the ground and imagine what they would look like at that distance. The process of elimination will get you to an appropriate conclusion if you care to use it.

[rwguinn]

It is too short and the true length has to be calculated from the measurement.

It is quite a bit easier, and more effective to think about what other structures might be present 400 feet off the ground and imagine what they would look like at that distance. The process of elimination will get you to an appropriate conclusion if you care to use it.

Now we know:
Christophera is actually Federico Pena, former Mayor of Denver, Colorado- who asked us to "Imagine a Great City", who went on to Sec'y of Transportation, and Imagined a great National System.
Imagination is wonderful.
Not effective, nor realistic, but wonderful, none the less...

[gumboot]

To quote Pink Floyd...

Crazy,
Toys in the attic I am crazy,
Truly gone fishing.
They must have taken my marbles away.
Crazy, toys in the attic he is crazy.

Crazy,
Over the rainbow, I am crazy,
Bars in the window.
There must have been a door there in the wall
When I came in.
Crazy, over the rainbow, he is crazy.

Now I feel I have constructively contributed to this discussion...

Relatively speaking.

-Andrew

[RandFan]

They are 2 words that can be used together. If you can't figure out what they mean, you probably tried to learn algebra in school.Ok, what do they mean? I googled "algebraic assimilation" and got zip. I know what algebraic means. I know what assmilation means. I don't know what algebraic assimilation means in the context of "algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math".


al·ge·bra·ic
adj.

Of, relating to, or designating algebra.
Designating an expression, equation, or function in which only numbers, letters, and arithmetic operations are contained or used.
Indicating or restricted to a finite number of operations involving algebra.So help me out here.

[realitybites]

I don't know what algebraic assimilation means in the context of "algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math".
It's just a phrase wanna-be Trekkies who were crap at math used to help make themselves fit in at the conventions.

I mean, let's face it. Sounds a hell of a lot better than "Finding X is Futile."

[Christophera]

Ok, what do they mean? I googled "algebraic assimilation" and got zip. I know what algebraic means. I know what assmilation means. I don't know what algebraic assimilation means in the context of "algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math".


[/LIST]So help me out here.

Algebra means "problem solving" in Greek. As ususal academia doesn't really want you to solve problems on your own, so they don't tell you the real meaning of the word. Just run you false rote passages with numbers.

It means to "take the evidence of the problem to be solved and consider with it the optimization of your arrangement of variables for your first try at the analytical approach".

[realitybites]

It means to "take the evidence of the problem to be solved and consider with it the optimization of your arrangement of variables for your first try at the analytical approach".

MAKE IT SO!

[Pardalis]

Now this (http://www.byrne-bros.co.uk/hsbc.html) is a concrete core.

[Woody-]

Now is a concrete core.

Thats exactly what I was trying to get at earlier in this thread, if there was a concrete core at the WTC then it would of had to be the first thing built. Not something added later seven or more stories below the top of construction.

[gumboot]

Algebra means "problem solving" in Greek.


Hah!I don't think so! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=algebra&searchmode=none)


algebra
1551, from M.L. from Arabic al jebr "reunion of broken parts" as in computation, used 9c. by Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi as the title of his famous treatise on equations ("Kitab al-Jabr w'al-Muqabala" "Rules of Reintegration and Reduction"), which also introduced Arabic numerals to the West. The accent shifted 17c. from second syllable to first. The word was used in Eng. 15c.-16c. to mean "bone-setting," probably from the Arabs in Spain.

So what do you really mean?

-Andrew

[Christophera]

It's just a phrase wanna-be Trekkies who were crap at math used to help make themselves fit in at the conventions.

I mean, let's face it. Sounds a hell of a lot better than "Finding X is Futile."

You reveal that you have been assimilated by the TV. No wonder your belief systems are rationally disabled.

[NobbyNobbs]

You reveal that you have been assimilated by the TV. No wonder your belief systems are rationally disabled.

You are being assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Now we know:
Christophera is actually Federico Pena, former Mayor of Denver, Colorado-

Haha.

I met him once back in those days. My school was having us participate in the Mayor's Cup 3 mile "fun run" and he was hanging waaaaayyy in the back of the pack with a couple of little kids so everyone else could get thier "I beat the Mayor" pins.

Yes, I sucked. =P

Still beat him though.

[Pardalis]

This (http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=298209) is a concrete core

[Pardalis]

Has anybody seen this site?: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/

It shows very close pictures of the rubble of WTC1, and some core columns I believe...

[Pardalis]

This has already been posted, but I emphasized the piece of the alledged concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b7262a457d.jpg

[Christophera]

Hah!I don't think so! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=algebra&searchmode=none)



So what do you really mean?

-Andrew

Andrew, you dog, yer freakin right. Same difference just no Greek in origin.

[Christophera]

This has already been posted, but I emphasized the piece of the alledged concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886449b7262a457d.jpg

That appears as the same object as the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) image from 90 degrees counter clockwise.

And you insist this is WTC 1?

[CptColumbo]

Andrew, you dog, yer freakin right. Same difference just no Greek in origin.
See how easy it is to admit you're wrong about something. Maybe you should look a word up, before you try to define it. Start with "Realistice."

[Christophera]

Now this (http://www.byrne-bros.co.uk/hsbc.html) is a concrete core.

Yes, they do build them that way sometimes, but not with the WTC, although people in the streets watching the construction didn't know that because it started at the ground looking like HSBC Tower core, but then after 4 floors, the core was cast inside the interior box columns at the WTC.

The type cranes used today to build the smaller, lighter core were not around in 1966.

Here is a usenet comment that shows those on the street couldn't see what was happening with the core past the gound level.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

In the last 22 or so hours, you've posted here an additional 98 times since my most recent request (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1719159&postcount=1386) for you to answer a simple, 2-part question. Your 97 posts are in addition to the previous 47 since I previously asked, for a total of 145 posts.

Here is the question again: How many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in both WTC 1 and WTC 2?

[Christophera]

Mr. Brown:

You have posted 47 times since I last asked you to answer the simple question found most recently in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1716723&postcount=1235). Will you please answer?

Here are pertinent posts regarding my request:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711843&postcount=700

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1710640&postcount=630

Again, how many undamaged stories were above the impacted stories in WTC 1 and WTC 2?

7 and 42, respectively.

And I've been waiting to hear whats not logical about the timer scenario.

[Regnad Kcin]

By the way, Mr. Brown, are you still standing by the authenticity of this:

Leslie E. Robertson
Posted: Apr 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Unregistered

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 CenterGet real. I don't know. But if it is from Robertson, he's done about what I would do in his situation given his position.
I ask you for the second time, if you "don't know," why did you present it here?

[Christophera]

I ask you for the second time, if you "don't know," why did you present it here?

Where else would I present it?

Aside from your error that that WTC 1 was "hit hardest" (and the corresponding mistake that it was the more damaged) do you see the error in your logic regarding the sequence of the collapses, or do I have to point it out to you?

What about the logic error regarding sequence, I'm waiting still.

[gumboot]

Andrew, you dog, yer freakin right. Same difference just no Greek in origin.


Uh huh...

Well the meanings are quite different. But the point is more there is a reoccurring pattern of you making statements that are completely false. Your track record for knowing what you're talking about is getting worse by the second.

-Andrew

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes, they do build them that way sometimes, but not with the WTC, although people in the streets watching the construction didn't know that because it started at the ground looking like HSBC Tower core, but then after 4 floors, the core was cast inside the interior box columns at the WTC.

The type cranes used today to build the smaller, lighter core were not around in 1966.

Here is a usenet comment that shows those on the street couldn't see what was happening with the core past the gound level.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

(bolding is mine)

So, all this time you are telling us that the reason we can't see the concrete core during construction is that the steel work rose 7 stories above it. And now you are providing us with a quote saying that the steel work was several stories behind (below) the concrete core. If this is true, then we should be able to see the core sticking up beyond the steel structure during construction!

Your references are obviously not as reliable as you think they are. Perhaps you might consider that they are equally unreliable in other ways?

[Christophera]

Uh huh...

Well the meanings are quite different. But the point is more there is a reoccurring pattern of you making statements that are completely false. Your track record for knowing what you're talking about is getting worse by the second.

-Andrew

Perhaps you're distorting that, the only part that wasn't right was the origin, the meaning is the same which was the reason algebra came up.

You are trying to piggyback that minor error of mine into something more important than the murders of people on American soil not receiving due process investigation, then the loss of our rights and freedoms. The premise of your act suffers with that.

Nothing has changed. You have completely failed to support the steel core columns with the same quality of surity that the evidence (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) I'm using imparts. Recall, rates of fall near free fall need to be explained, pulverization needs to be explained. And your premise will not suffice.

Huntsman hasn't told you yet how much energy it takes to sever heavy steel columns (up to 1500 times needed), and what THAT looks like, compared to what we saw.

[Christophera]

Yes, they do build them that way sometimes, but not with the WTC, although people in the streets watching the construction didn't know that because it started at the ground looking like HSBC Tower core, but then after 4 floors, the core was cast inside the interior box columns at the WTC.

The type cranes used today to build the smaller, lighter core were not around in 1966.

Here is a usenet comment that shows those on the street couldn't see what was happening with the core past the gound level.

Above is what I introduced that quote with. Try reading the intro to get the context right. I know some people have some part or another wrong in their account. It's about showing there was a concrete core not establishing the construction sequence. I know that. You need to know that people saw the concrete on the ground.

(bolding is mine)

So, all this time you are telling us that the reason we can't see the concrete core during construction is that the steel work rose 7 stories above it. And now you are providing us with a quote saying that the steel work was several stories behind (below) the concrete core. If this is true, then we should be able to see the core sticking up beyond the steel structure during construction!

Your references are obviously not as reliable as you think they are. Perhaps you might consider that they are equally unreliable in other ways?


Try another usenet comment about the towers core. the subject is not the towers core, they just mention it. See if you can remained focused now.

According to Thom Rounds <trounds@mediaone.net>:
[ ... ]
> One of the prime ingredients in concrete is water. Without a
>suspension of water in the mix, concrete would turn right back into powder
>again. What happens to water when you heat it up to about 180 degrees or
>so? And if it's in the middle of a chunk of conrete, what will the result
>be?

> Hint: where I spilled about a pint of molten metal, the concrete
>exploded and left a crater about two feet across and several inches deep.

> Softened steel? I don't think it ever got to that.

No, it didn't.

In these situations, the differing expansion rates of steel and concrete
are what causes the structural failure--rebar expands a lot faster than
the concrete around it, causing the concrete to start fracturing; once it
breaks into enough small pieces, it all comes down.

The WTC towers weren't built of massive I-beams and other large steel;
they used a lot of smaller beams around the perimiter and a reinforced
concrete core. The floors were also reinforced concrete, contributing to
ridgidity.

Once enough of the concrete crumbles away from the rebar, it folds. Once
one floor collapses, the rest will go from the impact stress.

In your case, you created a steam explosion in a relatively damp slab.
Floor slabs pick up a lot of moisture from the ground they're resting
on, and you superheated it in a fraction of a second to an extremely
high temperature. No suprise that it popped out a chunk of the surface;
hope you didn't get splashed.


Gary