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

[CptColumbo]

Perhaps your 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 you're 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.
The problem is that, even at the most fundamental level, you post without verifying your facts, even when the facts are easily checked. Buy a dictionary if you haven't already (look up "surity" while you're at it).

Your questions have been answered quite thoroughly, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, and despite the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

[RandFan]

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". Got it, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with BS."

Sadly it's not working. As a programor and having taking courses in problem solving, pholosophy, math and critical thinking I'm reasonably certain that I have sufficient esoteric understanding of problem solving to know that this is pure and utter BS.

"Optimization of your arangement of variable" Come on?

And BTW, I don't think you would know the etymology of the word "algebra" if it bit you in the ass. It's Arabic and not Greek.

Look, if you are going to spout off as though you were an expert then take a moment and figure out what the hell you are talking about, ok?

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=a&p=9)
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. See, no Greek.

[Diazo]

Has anybody seen this site?: [under 15 posts, broken url]

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

Just wanted to draw your attention to this link, specifically the 5th and 6th picture on the page Pardalis has linked. In those two pictures several columns are clearly shown, yet there are no chunks of concrete lying around. I would think an event that would destroy a massive structural concrete wall would have also blown away the columns visible, since they would have been right against said concrete wall.

From what I see, these pictures pretty much perfectly show the demolition pictures that are showing the steel core columns that have been asked for in this thread.

Yes, this has already been pretty much proven already, just these are the clearest and most definate pictures on the subject that have come up. To me, they show steel columns from the steel core and leave no wiggle room for another type of construction.

Note: Still under 15 posts, so the hyperlink in the quote doesn't work, scroll up to Pardalis's post #1737, or paste http [colon] //home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/ into your url bar.

[NobbyNobbs]

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.


I am focused. I'm focused on the core of the building, since that's the topic you choose to focus on. I'm focused on the fact that your source says that this concrete core is several stories ahead of the steel structure. I'm focused on the fact that despite this, no concrete core can be seen in the construction photos. This makes it very clear to me that your sources are unreliable at best.

[asmodean]

Algebra means "problem solving" in Greek.

No, it doesn't. Nor is it 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.


Paranoid much? And how would supressing the etymology of words stop people from solving problems of their own?

Further, at least at the university where I attended, problem solving and mathematical modeling and similar subjects was taught as basic subjects to all engineering student. Dunno 'bout the people in humanoria though tbh.

Just run you false rote passages with numbers.

Huh? Ah, I see. Knowing the subjects involved in analysing a problem, and performing the analysis is "false rote passages".. Why? Because the answer does not conform to your pre-conceived notions?

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".

Ah. Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Note in the last (bottom) picture linked to in post #1737: A large steel I-beam with a broken partial weld at its circumference. This could be called a "tack" weld, as it doesn't penetrate anywhere near fully. That would be consistent with a column designed primarily for compression rather than bending loads - seems to fit the description of a steel column that rather easily "snapped" into the "stock" lengths upon collapse.

[Johnny Pixels]

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.

That does look like a weld area, but why would the cap of the weld be ground down? That's an instant fail on a welder qualification test because it hides any defects in the cap. If it was done after the visual inspection, then why? It does not serve any purpose having the cap flush with the surface. The heat created by grinding may even cause some distortion in the weld.

Why would a core column have to be continuous?

A more general question to everyone, would there need to be any heat expansion taken into account with a building that size? I know they do with the concrete in bridges and roads, and railroad tracks. This would suggest to me that continuous columns or welded columns wouldn't be ideal, but bolted ones would allow room for expansion if needed.

[Orb]

(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?


I would be interested if Christopher knows of any other buildings that used his proposed method of construction. Do you know of any other examples of your "theory"?

[Montoya]

A more general question to everyone, would there need to be any heat expansion taken into account with a building that size? I know they do with the concrete in bridges and roads, and railroad tracks. This would suggest to me that continuous columns or welded columns wouldn't be ideal, but bolted ones would allow room for expansion if needed.

According to the NIST report (1-6D), there was heat-related expansion of the core columns. Together with high temperatures and the impact damage, this higher load caused creep and buckling of the core columns and a resulting shortening. As a result, some of the load shifted to the perimeter columns, but the effects were not dramatic. For example, in WTC1, the south wall only carried 10% extra load when it initiated the collapse.

As far as my layman's interpretation is correct, the primary reason for the collapse was the fact that the floors were sagging, and pulling the perimeter columns inward. Thermal expansion in the columns did occur, but the resulting forces were still within the design limits. The NIST report attributes the collapse of the towers mainly to the loss of fire protection on the steel members. If the fireproofing had not been dislodged, the floors would not have sagged as much, and the towers would have had a very good chance of surviving.

So, it doesn't look like it's necessary to have special measures to combat heat-related expansion, as long as the building has been engineered with sufficient margins.

[Pardalis]

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?

It IS WTC1! That's my point!

The street on the left is West Side, and the black building with a big gash in it is WTC6.

[Pardalis]

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.




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

Who are Thom Rounds and Gary? Are they engeneers?

[Pardalis]

Why would a core column have to be continuous?

Good point.

Maybe this will sound completely ignorant, but to me it's impossible to expect a steel beam to be 417 m (1,368(ft)) long. The core column couldn't have been continuous even if they wanted.

If this is complete BS, someone tell me (not Christophera, real engeneers).:D

[Dragon]

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?You keep posting this picture. As others have said, it lacks the resolution to draw the conclusions that you insist on.
However, if those things you are labelling as "rebar" are really steel reinforcing rods then there is something rather obvious missing when compared to any other reinforced concrete I've ever seen.


(apologies if someone has already pointed this out - I'm not sure my patience is up to reading the whole thread)

[Montoya]

Who are Thom Rounds and Gary? Are they engeneers?

This is the original thread (from talk.bizarre, posted 9/14/2001)

groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/browse_frm/thread/63017aeece98366d/735abbd21fe00298

[gumboot]

Maybe this will sound completely ignorant, but to me it's impossible to expect a steel beam to be 417 m (1,368(ft)) long. The core column couldn't have been continuous even if they wanted.



Don't forget that's only the above ground height. I am assuming the core continues through the basement floors and into the foundations, otherwise it would seem kinda pointless...

You'd need one impressive foundary to forge a continuous beam that long...

-Andrew

[Meffy]

Christophera, may I suggest you use as your avatar a picture of the mighty and dignified Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail?"

[edit] As a safeguard, I'll add that the Black Knight is named for the color of his armor. I say this so you won't think you can garner sympathy points by accusing me of playing a race card. *9_9*

[Hellbound]

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

"Algebraic Assimilation"?

Hmmm.

Algebraic: 1. Of, relating to, or designating algebra.
2. Designating an expression, equation, or function in which only numbers, letters, and arithmetic operations are contained or used.
3. Indicating or restricted to a finite number of operations involving algebra.

Algebra: 1. A branch of mathematics in which symbols, usually letters of the alphabet, represent numbers or members of a specified set and are used to represent quantities and to express general relationships that hold for all members of the set.
2. A set together with a pair of binary operations defined on the set. Usually, the set and the operations include an identity element, and the operations are commutative or associative.

Assimilation: 1. The incorporation of digested substances from food into the tissues of an organism.
2. The amalgamation and modification of newly perceived information and experiences into the existing cognitive structure.

Interesting.

So, since I used the term math, I'm forgetting math (algebra).

And you thing the evidence needs to be assimilated (i.e.-fit into a cognitive structure...placed into a theory) before one determines the physics and mathematics that describes the situation?

This explains a lot, actually.

[RandFan]

This is the original thread (from talk.bizarre, posted 9/14/2001)

groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/browse_frm/thread/63017aeece98366d/735abbd21fe00298 Your link http://tinyurl.com/jq8ee made clickable.

[Belz...]

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.

If a cloud looks like a bunny, then it IS a bunny. Got it.

[Belz...]

You might want to give this line of denial up.

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

I'm not sure you even know what they're talking about.

[Meffy]

"Algebraic Assimilation"?
Whooeeee, Huntsman, you're good with those "Greek" words!

Christophera, your use of big words makes me wonder how good you are at algebra. Please answer these questions. They will help me (and possibly others) to determine how much credibility should be given to certain of your statements.

* Do you use algebra often?
* Do you consider yourself skillful at algebra?
* Does algebra help you to work out mathematical problems related to the destruction of the WTC towers?
* Do you believe you can rely on your algebraic skills?
* Are you willing to put those skills to a simple test?

[RandFan]

This explains a lot, actually. It Does.

...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... I think this is pseudo-intellectual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-intellectual) speak for "getting your ducks in a row". And is there really any significance to "your first try"? Isn't that like saying you should put on clothes before leaving the house in the morning or am I trying to find meaning where there really is none?

I'm not an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise. I'll have to leave it to smarter folks than myself to parse. It really sounds like BS to me though.

[Belz...]

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.

Oooohh.... so they're not support columns... they're "massive" box columns.

Right.

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.

Incorrect. Judging from Gravy's aerial photo (great shot, by the way) it can ONLY be WTC1.

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

You're damn right there was a dust cloud. In that picture, you can clearly see that the TOP of the "core" has deformed, which it wouldn't do if it were concrete. Any thoughts ?

[Johnny Pixels]

Good point.

Maybe this will sound completely ignorant, but to me it's impossible to expect a steel beam to be 417 m (1,368(ft)) long. The core column couldn't have been continuous even if they wanted.

If this is complete BS, someone tell me (not Christophera, real engeneers).:D

Making a beam that length in one go is not possible, so the alternative is to make sections and join them together. That can either be done by welding them together, or bolting them. The problem with welding is, you need to inspect welds after they have been done to ensure they have been welded properly. The problem with this is time. It takes a long, long time to properly radiograph welds when they have been made, as radiographers have to work at night when the site shuts down, to protect others from exposure to radiation. This is not so bad when the site is fairly close to the ground, as sections can be shut off as needed, so work carries on elsewhere while the radiographers inspect the welds. This wouldn't work on a high rise building, basically because the welders can weld more in a day than the radiographers can inspect in a night. This means that the next section can't be put up on top of the previous days welds, as they haven't been tested, and so may not be strong enough, or may need to be repaired.

The solution? Bolt the column sections together. Bolts only need visual inspection, and at the most an ultrasound or magnetic particle inspection to make sure they've not been over tightened and cracked the fishplate, column or the bolt itself. These inspections are quick, and the inspectors can follow the workers around as there are no harmful effects involved.

That's not to say there won't be any welds on the WTC columns, because there need to be brackets and fittings added, but these will have been inspected by x-ray in an exposure bay either off site at the steel works, an independant testing company, or if the steel is fabricated on site there may be an exposure bay built there to inspect the welds as they are completed.

[gumboot]

A quick question, Christophera...

If the main structural element of the towers is a core made of concrete with 3" rebar on 4' centres, why on earth did they surround the core with 47 "massive" 415 metre long "interior box columns"? If they are not structural, what is their purpose? Decoration?

-Andrew

[Belz...]

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.

:jaw-dropp

So GUESSES are better than calculations ????????????????????????

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

How could they make continuous columns that long ??

[kevin]

Who are Thom Rounds and Gary? Are they engeneers?

they are gamers. What's entertaining is that e-mail was written in 1999 about a scenario in a game they were playing, so you know that information is totally accurate. Original message here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.gurps/browse_thread/thread/419971e4f8a669dd/f3bc7d2c358a7845?lnk=st&q=world+trade+center+concrete+core&rnum=1&hl=en#f3bc7d2c358a7845

[Belz...]

Algebra means "problem solving" in Greek

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

Er... no, because it doesn't even MEAN the same thing.

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".

Care to link to a dictionary or terminology reference so we can verify that you're not just inventing stuff ?

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

Uh oh. Not another loon who thinks TV kills brain cells.

[Meffy]

:jaw-dropp

So GUESSES are better than calculations ????????????????????????
Oh, you bet! I once read a book on astrology that contained tables of planetary positions in the back... except for Mercury, which moves so fast that the tables would've been very bulky.

Solution? Yup, you guessed it! Guesswork.

The astrologer explained that Mercury could only be in the same house as the Sun, or at most one (or two? I forget) houses away. So you should read the descriptions of people with Mercury in those houses, then decide which one best fits the subject of your horoscopy. =O.o=

I kid you not. And this was one of the big popular astrologers of the day (early or mid-1970s), not some minor fringe-of-the-fringe type.

"You'll be surprised how accurate this method is!" Accurate as determined how? Not by finding where Mercury really was, but by patting yourself on the back for your personality trait matching skills. IOW, this method gives good matches because you pick a good match. Nothing to do with the real Mercury, nor even the astrological one.

The lesson: Guesswork is "better" than calculations. It gives you the answers you wanted to get when you started. [edit] 'Specially when calculations let you down.

[azazal]

they are gamers. What's entertaining is that e-mail was written in 1999 about a scenario in a game they were playing, so you know that information is totally accurate. Original message here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.gurps/browse_thread/thread/419971e4f8a669dd/f3bc7d2c358a7845?lnk=st&q=world+trade+center+concrete+core&rnum=1&hl=en#f3bc7d2c358a7845

But it's GURPS, the end all be all PRG, or so it's players say. But yes, a couple of college guys talking about a ROLE PLAYING GAME outrank all that pesky edivdence

[Hellbound]

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.

Okay, I found an electronic version of Army FM 5-34, Engineer Field Data (also known as the "Engineer's Bible").

Let's calculate what we need to pulverize a concrete core vs. what we need to cut the steel columns.

Core Size: 87 feet by 133 feet.

Steel core: Consisted of 44 to 47 steel columns, which were from 32"x16" up to 52" x 22". For this quick calculation, we'll average these sizes and assume 47 columns at 42" x 19".

The formula for calculationg a steel-cutting charge (for cutting beams or girders) is P=3/8*A, where P is the TNT-equivalent, in pounds, and A is the cross-sectional area, in inches. Let's assume the sides of the steel box columns are 2 inches thick, then that gives us an A of 228 in2. That gives us P=85.5. C-4 has an REF of 1.34, which means we'd need (85.5/1.34) about 64 lbs. of C-4 per core column, or 2,998 lbs to cut all 47. Quite a bit. Note, however, that this does not consider the tension or other stress on the columns, and it also considers a single charge placement (not wrap-arounds, but that doesn't matter so much for steel cutting).

Now, let's look at concrete. We have a 17' thick wall, 133' by 87'. That gives us 6,324 ft2 of concrete in cross-section, 63,240 ft3 for a 10' height floor.
Now, Chris's theory suggests C-4 coated rebar every 4 feet, which means each charge must blow through 2 feet of concrete in radius (assume a 4'x4' destruction radius, or 16 ft2, or 64 ft[sup3[/sup]). The formula for breeching is P=R3KC, where P is the pounds of C-4, R is the radius, K is the material factor, and C is the tamping factor. For internal charges, C=1.0. The material factor for reinforced concrete (of .67 meters, our radius) is .96. So, that gives us (23*.96*1) 7.68 lbs per 16 square feet, or 3,035 pounds of C-4 to "cut" the concrete core.

Now, to be realistic:

For the steel, you'd need one cut per 30 foot or so to completely demolish the core. Let's say the core is 1200' tall. That means you'd need (40*2998)
119,920 lbs of C-4 to completely destroy the steel core (about 60 tons). In Chris's scenario, however, we're pulverizing the concrete core. The charges only have a 2 foot radius, so we need one "set" every 4 feet of height. That means we'd need (300*3035) 910,500 lbs. Over 455 tons.

Sorry, Chris, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Your "thin coating" of C-4 on the rebar would have to add up to (5*3035) 15,175 pounds per floor. That is NOT a thin coating. That's 7.5 tons of C-4, and it amounts to about to just over 4 pounds of C-4 per cubic foot of volume in the concrete wall. Over half the wall would have to be C-4.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, I found an electronic version of Army FM 5-34, Engineer Field Data (also known as the "Engineer's Bible").
...

You know Huntsman, if I could get you and Jack Coughlin in a room together with some beverages and snacks I could be amused for days my your combined knowledge of things explodey and lethal.

Awesome post btw.

[Meffy]

Darned calculations. See there? They come up with such inconvenient results. No wonder guesswork is the breakfast of champions.

[azazal]

(reads Huntsman's post)

Math, blowing CTers out of the water for years.

So does Chris have anything left?
Rebar = It ain't rebar and it ain't 3 inches across
Concrete Core = No evidence of it, but plent for the steel columns
Explosives = Yeah right

So what's left other then sicking his fingers in his ears and screaming "NANANA I'm not listening!!!"

[Apollyon]

You reveal that you have been assimilated by the TV. No wonder your belief systems are rationally disabled.
Erm, aren't you the guy who bases his entire woo-ness concerning the towers on a single TV show you claim to have seen once that you can't seem to prove ever existed in the first place?

The irony that floods out of you is a continual source of amusement.

[Hellbound]

(reads Huntsman's post)

Math, blowing CTers out of the water for years.

So does Chris have anything left?
Rebar = It ain't rebar and it ain't 3 inches across
Concrete Core = No evidence of it, but plent for the steel columns
Explosives = Yeah right

So what's left other then sicking his fingers in his ears and screaming "NANANA I'm not listening!!!"

You know Huntsman, if I could get you and Jack Coughlin in a room together with some beverages and snacks I could be amused for days my your combined knowledge of things explodey and lethal.

Awesome post btw.

Darned calculations. See there? They come up with such inconvenient results. No wonder guesswork is the breakfast of champions.

Aw, shucks :blush:

I would have done this earlier, but I kept forgetting to dig out my FM 5-34 at home (it's still packed up from when I moved a year ago). So I decided to go to the Army's pub site and download a PDF version (lot easier than finding my paper one). Figured I was getting tired of Chris's claims, and needed to dsouble-check my own recall, anyway.

Also, just wanted to point out that the steel-cutting calculation used is not considering a shaped charge or anything else. Precise placement and directed blast could easily cut the steel cutting figure in half or more. That figure was what you'd need if you just stuck a big ole' block of C-4 on the side of it. A simple shaping (like a 45 degree inverted cone on the cut side) would give a 50% reduction.

For the concrete, however, since you want it pulverized, you can't do a shaped charge, you need the undirected blast to hit all of it. And, of course, you can't shape a coating on rebar.

And I didn't get into the characteristics of the charge itself. It isn't just the amount you have to worry about. You also have to calculate how thick the charge has to be to be effective. A pound of C-4 spread out over a 3' by 3' area will not breech a wall that the same amount of C-4 in a concentrated blob would breech. Spreading it over the rebar would actually reduce the effectiveness, and require more C-4 than if you used single charges spaced out.

[Meffy]

Righty, then -- Christophera, let's see your calculations now.

[sfx="crickets.wav"]

[Hutch]

Let me add my congrats, Huntsman; that's a slam dunk if there ever was one. Not that christophera will see it that way..

"...and I would've gotten away with it, too, except for those rotten kids and their pesky calculations..." (end Scooby-do moment)

Arkan, at the risk of getting you banned again, somebody needs to share these calulations with the fine folks at Loose Change. Wonder what the charge would have been to take out WTC7?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let me add my congrats, Huntsman; that's a slam dunk if there ever was one. Not that christophera will see it that way..



Arkan, at the risk of getting you banned again, somebody needs to share these calulations with the fine folks at Loose Change. Wonder what the charge would have been to take out WTC7?

I can't promise I will get to it this weekend (out of town guests in house), but I can dump it over there in the near future.

[Christophera]

You keep posting this picture. As others have said, it lacks the resolution to draw the conclusions that you insist on.
However, if those things you are labelling as "rebar" are really steel reinforcing rods then there is something rather obvious missing when compared to any other reinforced concrete I've ever seen.

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows that. This is primary and determines all actions from that point forward.

Now, ............. once you know that there was no core comprised of steel core columns, how important is image resolution?

How much resolution do you need to make the conclusion that the steel core columns are not present as FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) says they were?

[Hellbound]

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows that. This is primary and determines all actions from that point forward.

Now, ............. once you know that there was no core comprised of steel core columns, how important is image resolution?

How much resolution do you need to make the conclusion that the steel core columns are not present as FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) says they were?

Fairly important, actually, considering the steel columns could have been simultaneously cut into 30 ft sections with about 1/8th the amount of C-4 needed to pulverize the core (even less if they used specialized, shaped cutting charges).

Assuming, of course, you accept the demolition theory.

So, let's just assume, for the sake of argument, there was a concrete core. How did they get 455 tons of explosive into it? How were they able to make it hold it's own weight, much less that of the building, when over half its volume must have been composed of explosive compounds?

[NobbyNobbs]

they are gamers. What's entertaining is that e-mail was written in 1999 about a scenario in a game they were playing, so you know that information is totally accurate. Original message here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.gurps/browse_thread/thread/419971e4f8a669dd/f3bc7d2c358a7845?lnk=st&q=world+trade+center+concrete+core&rnum=1&hl=en#f3bc7d2c358a7845

Oh, this is rich. His best text evidence is from an RPG.

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there. This image shows that. This is primary and determines all actions from that point forward.

And resolution doesn't matter. You don't have to see that they're not there, because we already know they're not there, because the image shows they're not there even though we can't see they're not there because of the resolution, which doesn't matter. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

[Apollyon]

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows that. This is primary and determines all actions from that point forward.

Now, ............. once you know that there was no core comprised of steel core columns, how important is image resolution?

How much resolution do you need to make the conclusion that the steel core columns are not present as FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) says they were?
You can see core columns here (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview001.html).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We do not need resolution to see that the steel core columns which are supposed to be there, are not there. This image (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows that. This is primary and determines all actions from that point forward.

Now, ............. once you know that there was no core comprised of steel core columns, how important is image resolution?

How much resolution do you need to make the conclusion that the steel core columns are not present as FEMA (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) says they were?

Another day, another round of Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

[Correa Neto]

Way to go, Huntsman!!!

As a reward, I propose we should never ever again confuse Huntsman with Huntster, neither make any jokes mixing the names, on the penalty of the offender having his/hers toilet rigged with C4.

[Hellbound]

Way to go, Huntsman!!!

As a reward, I propose we should never ever again confuse Huntsman with Huntster, neither make any jokes mixing the names, on the penalty of having his/hers toilet rigged with C4.

Yes...you'd be suprised what a quarter-pound shaped charge in the bottom of the bowl can do

:j2:

:D

[DavidJames]

Yes...you'd be suprised what a quarter-pound shaped charge in the bottom of the bowl can do

:j2:
No, not really, I see the results almost daily ;)

[Christophera]

Core Size: 87 feet by 133 feet.
The wall thickness, not the over all dimensions of the core is what one starts with.

Steel core: Consisted of 44 to 47 steel columns, which were from 32"x16" up to 52" x 22". For this quick calculation, we'll average these sizes and assume 47 columns at 42" x 19".

I do not think you have a competent source for that. The tapered core column presents a problem with the crowding at the basement level related to the empty spaces higher up. The supposed cross bracing of the core columns should be documented before accepting anything regarding steel core columns.

The formula for calculationg a steel-cutting charge (for cutting beams or girders) is P=3/8*A, where P is the TNT-equivalent, in pounds, and A is the cross-sectional area, in inches. Let's assume the sides of the steel box columns are 2 inches thick, then that gives us an A of 228 in2. That gives us P=85.5. C-4 has an REF of 1.34, which means we'd need (85.5/1.34) about 64 lbs. of C-4 per core column, or 2,998 lbs to cut all 47. Quite a bit. Note, however, that this does not consider the tension or other stress on the columns, and it also considers a single charge placement (not wrap-arounds, but that doesn't matter so much for steel cutting).

For the steel, you'd need one cut per 30 foot or so to completely demolish the core. Let's say the core is 1200' tall. That means you'd need (40*2998)
119,920 lbs of C-4 to completely destroy the steel core (about 60 tons).


Since we saw no steel core columns of full length in the demo photos, they would have to have been all cut. Meaning there was 60 tons distributed over 1400 cuts with 64 LBS per cut. This image does not reflect that event (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

Hunstman has left out a very important factor, The appearance of 64 LBS of C4 going of with ONLY a minimal tamping to contain it. Multiply that by 1400 and you have COMPLETELY changed the visual character of the WTC towers on 9-11. Instead of structure falling close to the tower base, substancial sizes pieces (maybe 100, 200 pounds) of steel fly 1/4 mile from the elevations the charges are detonated at shrapnel speeds. Each detonation turns into a huge horizontal explosion having very little concrete in it, consisting mostly of free gas jets escaping, carrying debris hundreds of feet horizontally.

Now, let's look at concrete. We have a 17' thick wall, 133' by 87'. That gives us 6,324 ft2 of concrete in cross-section, 63,240 ft3 for a 10' height floor.
Now, Chris's theory suggests C-4 coated rebar every 4 feet, which means each charge must blow through 2 feet of concrete in radius (assume a 4'x4' destruction radius, or 16 ft2, or 64 ft[sup3[/sup]). The formula for breeching is P=R3KC, where P is the pounds of C-4, R is the radius, K is the material factor, and C is the tamping factor. For internal charges, C=1.0. The material factor for reinforced concrete (of .67 meters, our radius) is .96. So, that gives us (23*.96*1) 7.68 lbs per 16 square feet, or 3,035 pounds of C-4 to "cut" the concrete core.

In Chris's scenario, however, we're pulverizing the concrete core. The charges only have a 2 foot radius, so we need one "set" every 4 feet of height. That means we'd need (300*3035) 910,500 lbs. Over 455 tons.


These calcs are not comprehensive to the wall lengths as I note above. Not sure how these calc's are relative. The core is not cut. it is fractured and I see no value for K, material.

Sorry, Chris, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Your "thin coating" of C-4 on the rebar would have to add up to (5*3035) 15,175 pounds per floor. That is NOT a thin coating. That's 7.5 tons of C-4, and it amounts to about to just over 4 pounds of C-4 per cubic foot of volume in the concrete wall. Over half the wall would have to be C-4.

Seeing as K, the material value is missing, the above figure is not accurate.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The wall thickness, not the over all dimensions of the core is what one starts with.



I do not think you have a competent source for that. The tapered core column presents a problem with the crowding at the basement level related to the empty spaces higher up. The supposed cross bracing of the core columns should be documented before accepting anything regarding steel core columns.



Since we saw no steel core columns of full length in the demo photos, they would have to have been all cut. Meaning there was 60 tons distributed over 1400 cuts with 64 LBS per cut. This image does not reflect that event (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

Hunstman has left out a very important factor, The appearance of 64 LBS of C4 going of with ONLY a minimal tamping to contain it. Multiply that by 1400 and you have COMPLETELY changed the visual character of the WTC towers on 9-11. Instead of structure falling close to the tower base, substancial sizes pieces (maybe 100, 200 pounds) of steel fly 1/4 mile from the elevations the charges are detonated at shrapnel speeds. Each detonation turns into a huge horizontal explosion having very little concrete in it, consisting mostly of free gas jets escaping, carrying debris hundreds of feet horizontally.



These calcs are not comprehensive to the wall lengths as I note above. Not sure how these calc's are relative. The core is not cut. it is fractured and I see no value for K, material.



Seeing as K, the material value is missing, the above figure is not accurate.

Perhaps you would like to provide your math for your work? Oh, that's right, you eyeball everything. STFU.

[Christophera]

Another day, another round of Please provide evidence supporting your claim other than the interpretation of pictures post-collapse.

Correct, and the multiple steel core columns have never been evidenced in a proper fashion.

After you support, with qualified evidence, the existence of the steel core columns, we will have no need for interpretation of the images of the towers demise to show concrete. Thsi is only competent.

[Christophera]

Perhaps you would like to provide your math for your work? Oh, that's right, you eyeball everything. STFU.

Not a good answer for one who has not supported the structure they assert stood.

[Meffy]

What Arkan said. Show your calculations or admit it's all guesswork.

[twinstead]

Not a good answer for one who has not supported the structure they assert stood.

You have been given math to support a claim. Now give us YOUR math that proves it wrong. What is so hard about that?

[Christophera]

Why would a core column have to be continuous?


The core column must be continous because the core is continous. If it is not continous it does not complete the "core", it is simply a structural element which is inside the core. It is not "of" the core because the core is continous.

Examine any product that has a core structure, you will see it is continous.

[Christophera]

What Arkan said. Show your calculations or admit it's all guesswork.

That is silly. The structure you suppost as extant has NEVER been shown to exist.

[DavidJames]

That is silly. The structure you suppost as extant has NEVER been shown to exist.Show us the calculations or be gone.

[Christophera]

You have been given math to support a claim. Now give us YOUR math that proves it wrong. What is so hard about that?

What is so hard about coming up with an image of a steel core column. I have no problem coming up with images of concrete.

[Meffy]

Waiting to see your calculations. You can skip the algebraic assimilation and the calcutronic discombobulation, just show us the numbers and calculations you're using.

[Christophera]

Don't forget that's only the above ground height. I am assuming the core continues through the basement floors and into the foundations, otherwise it would seem kinda pointless...

You'd need one impressive foundary to forge a continuous beam that long...

-Andrew

Wow Andrew, you completely missed the part about the 100% weld joining column pieces. Good job of ignorance!

[Hellbound]

The wall thickness, not the over all dimensions of the core is what one starts with.

You need both, because you have to consider the cross-sectional area that you are working with. I used the dimensions of the core and the thickness of the wall to calculate. You can figure it out and check my math, it isn't hard. I did it like so:

Total core are=133' * 87'=11571 ft2
Wall thickness=17'
Interior Dimensions=Exterior dimensions - near wall thickness - far wall thickness= width: 133-17-17=99, length: 87-17-17=53.
Interior area=99*53=5247 ft2
Cross-sectional area of concrete=Total Area-Core area=11571-5247=6,324 ft2

I do not think you have a competent source for that. The tapered core column presents a problem with the crowding at the basement level related to the empty spaces higher up. The supposed cross bracing of the core columns should be documented before accepting anything regarding steel core columns.

The large volume I listed is from the base of one of the core columns. See this site (http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html). It's even a CTer site, but they sourced their comments on the structure, and provide evidence (unlike you). Towards the bottom you'll see a picture of one of the core columns. They were tapered, but not as much as you seem to believe.

However, I'm not trying to prove core columns here. I'm arguing against your assertion that steel cores would be harder to cut. We assume steel core columns to examine this idea.

Since we saw no steel core columns of full length in the demo photos, they would have to have been all cut. Meaning there was 60 tons distributed over 1400 cuts with 64 LBS per cut. This image does not reflect that event (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg).

I'm not arguing about image. That image doesn't refelct 455 tons of C-4 exploding inside reinforced concrete, either. Neither situation happened, but blowing the columns is a lot more realistic.

In any case, I don't see why it doesn't fit with that image. Take out the core, the whole building comes down. And the 64 lb. C-4 charges could easily blow material out the sides, right?

Hunstman has left out a very important factor, The appearance of 64 LBS of C4 going of with ONLY a minimal tamping to contain it. Multiply that by 1400 and you have COMPLETELY changed the visual character of the WTC towers on 9-11. Instead of structure falling close to the tower base, substancial sizes pieces (maybe 100, 200 pounds) of steel fly 1/4 mile from the elevations the charges are detonated at shrapnel speeds. Each detonation turns into a huge horizontal explosion having very little concrete in it, consisting mostly of free gas jets escaping, carrying debris hundreds of feet horizontally.

Can you support this assertion? Where's your math? Recall that anything thrown by these explosions has 60' or so of building to go through. And I assumed simply gobs of C-4 to make the number for steel higher. If this was a government job, shaped cutting charges are more likely which could be designed to blow inward, towards the center of the core. They'd also require much less explosive (at least 50% less). And gobs of C-4 would NOT turn into a "huge horizontal explosion with very little concrete". I mean, if they cut the beams where the joined the floor the floors provide the concrete blasts. Not to mention concrete crushed and ejected by the fall itself.

Show me your math, Chris. I showed you mine.

These calcs are not comprehensive to the wall lengths as I note above. Not sure how these calc's are relative. The core is not cut. it is fractured and I see no value for K, material.

Fracture is what I was looking for. Your exact words have been "pulverized". I used the effective blast radius in material (the effective breeching radius, which is how far out the explosive will cause a destabalizing fracture so the structure falls). That means each C-4 covered piece of rebar needs to fracture a radius of 2 feet from it's location to get all the concrete around it. If anything, I under-estimated, because you'd need a larger radius to get everything...Mine assumed the circular blast radius would be the same as a cube of 2R per side.

Seeing as K, the material value is missing, the above figure is not accurate.

Seeing as K, the material factor, is explicitly listed as being .96 for reinforced concrete of 2/3 meters thickness, you can't read.

Even if we dropped the blast radius to 1.5, you'd still need about 42% that amount of explosives, or about 192 tons. Still three times as much as cutting all the steel columns into 30' sections.

You hjave shown a complete lack of knowledge about explosives through your multiple comments here, beyond generalizations. SHOW me where I'm wrong. SHOW me your math. SHOW me how you do your calculations.

I'll be here.

[Meffy]

That is silly. The structure you suppost as extant has NEVER been shown to exist.
This is the purest kind of nonsense. I have never "suppost" any structure as extant. If you believe otherwise, then show me your evidence to support your claim or retract it.

Now show your calculations.

[rwguinn]

What is so hard about coming up with an image of a steel core column. I have no problem coming up with imaginary concrete.
Bolding and italics mine
Corrected to reality...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Correct, and the multiple steel core columns have never been evidenced in a proper fashion.

After you support, with qualified evidence, the existence of the steel core columns, we will have no need for interpretation of the images of the towers demise to show concrete. Thsi is only competent.

You claim must stand on its own. It can not rely on the disproving of another claim.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not a good answer for one who has not supported the structure they assert stood.

I am not making the claim, you are. Support your claim, or STFU.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The core column must be continous because the core is continous. If it is not continous it does not complete the "core", it is simply a structural element which is inside the core. It is not "of" the core because the core is continous.

Examine any product that has a core structure, you will see it is continous.

Is a railroad track continuous?

[Johnny Pixels]

The core column must be continous because the core is continous. If it is not continous it does not complete the "core", it is simply a structural element which is inside the core. It is not "of" the core because the core is continous.

Examine any product that has a core structure, you will see it is continous.

Doesn't your concrete core have hallways running through it? Making it non-continuous?

[twinstead]

What is so hard about coming up with an image of a steel core column. I have no problem coming up with images of concrete.

Dude you have been shown dozens of images of steel core column, and all you have is one image that only in your deluded mind is a concrete core.

You totally ignore evidence that contradicts your theory, instead holding fast your beliefs in the face of that evidence simply by repeating them over and over again. Only crazy people do that, but one of the things that makes crazy people so crazy is they don't know how crazy they are. To them, everybody else is crazy.

Some investigator you are.

[Hellbound]

Actually, I did maker a slight mistake in my calculations.

The 2 inch thickness of steel in the box columns was for higher up. They were 5 inches thick for the outer core columns, and 2 inches for the inner. So, we take an average of that (there were the same number of inner columns as outer) as 3.5". That increases my steel cutting calculation by 75%, going from 60 tons to 105 tons, and from 64lb charges to 80 lb. charges.

Oh, and as far as your "half-mile away steel", the safe stand-off distance for an 80 lb. explosive charge is only 431 meters. It won't throw any debris farther than this (unless it has some sort of channeling/shaping to give a pressure build-up and a directional force). That's the safe standoff distance in the open, i.e. no cover at all. Those charges would have had several dozen feet of building to go through.

By the way, again from a CTer site:

Evidence of the core columns:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/index.html
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core.
World Trade Center Master Plans (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html)
Numerous construction photos (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/construction.html)

So, anything you'd like to add, Chris? Like, I dunno, some evidence? Some math and calculations maybe?

[Christophera]

You need both, because you have to consider the cross-sectional area that you are working with. I used the dimensions of the core and the thickness of the wall to calculate. You can figure it out and check my math, it isn't hard. I did it like so:

Total core are=133' * 87'=11571 ft2
Wall thickness=17'
Interior Dimensions=Exterior dimensions - near wall thickness - far wall thickness= width: 133-17-17=99, length: 87-17-17=53.
Interior area=99*53=5247 ft2
Cross-sectional area of concrete=Total Area-Core area=11571-5247=6,324 ft2



The large volume I listed is from the base of one of the core columns. See this site (http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html). It's even a CTer site, but they sourced their comments on the structure, and provide evidence (unlike you). Towards the bottom you'll see a picture of one of the core columns. They were tapered, but not as much as you seem to believe.

However, I'm not trying to prove core columns here. I'm arguing against your assertion that steel cores would be harder to cut. We assume steel core columns to examine this idea.



I'm not arguing about image. That image doesn't refelct 455 tons of C-4 exploding inside reinforced concrete, either. Neither situation happened, but blowing the columns is a lot more realistic.

In any case, I don't see why it doesn't fit with that image. Take out the core, the whole building comes down. And the 64 lb. C-4 charges could easily blow material out the sides, right?



Can you support this assertion? Where's your math? Recall that anything thrown by these explosions has 60' or so of building to go through. And I assumed simply gobs of C-4 to make the number for steel higher. If this was a government job, shaped cutting charges are more likely which could be designed to blow inward, towards the center of the core. They'd also require much less explosive (at least 50% less). And gobs of C-4 would NOT turn into a "huge horizontal explosion with very little concrete". I mean, if they cut the beams where the joined the floor the floors provide the concrete blasts. Not to mention concrete crushed and ejected by the fall itself.

Show me your math, Chris. I showed you mine.



Fracture is what I was looking for. Your exact words have been "pulverized". I used the effective blast radius in material (the effective breeching radius, which is how far out the explosive will cause a destabalizing fracture so the structure falls). That means each C-4 covered piece of rebar needs to fracture a radius of 2 feet from it's location to get all the concrete around it. If anything, I under-estimated, because you'd need a larger radius to get everything...Mine assumed the circular blast radius would be the same as a cube of 2R per side.



Seeing as K, the material factor, is explicitly listed as being .96 for reinforced concrete of 2/3 meters thickness, you can't read.

Even if we dropped the blast radius to 1.5, you'd still need about 42% that amount of explosives, or about 192 tons. Still three times as much as cutting all the steel columns into 30' sections.

You hjave shown a complete lack of knowledge about explosives through your multiple comments here, beyond generalizations. SHOW me where I'm wrong. SHOW me your math. SHOW me how you do your calculations.

I'll be here.

Hah. After you fail to produce 1 image of steel core columns from the demolition photos, do you think you can be taken seriously enough by anyone to try and disprove your calculations.

The quantity of C4 you state is needed is grossly oversized.

[Hellbound]

Hah. After you fail to produce 1 image of steel core columns from the demolition photos, do you think you can be taken seriously enough by anyone to try and disprove your calculations.

The quantity of C4 you state is needed is grossly oversized.

So show me.

Where are your calculations?

What do you have to prove me wrong besides your assertion that my calculations are wrong?

Show your work.

Easy enough, you must have already done the calculations in order to state this so definately, so just show me what you've already got finished?

Not hard to do, and a quick way to show everyone just how wrong I am and how right you are.

Come on, what are you afraid of?

[Meffy]

Hah. After you fail to produce 1 image of steel core columns from the demolition photos, do you think you can be taken seriously enough by anyone to try and disprove your calculations.
For the (n+1)th time, It is not incumbent upon Huntsman to provide anything you ask for. It is YOUR responsibility to prove YOUR extraordinary claim by providing extraordinarily good evidence. You have provided nothing resembling evidence. Huntsman is taken VERY seriously by those who rely on knowledge rather than evasion, competency rather than speculation, facts instead of imagination. You'd be wise to open your eyes.

The quantity of C4 you state is needed is grossly oversized.
That's quite a claim. Show the calculations you used to reach this conclusion.

[azazal]

That is silly. The structure you suppost as extant has NEVER been shown to exist.

Well we have:
Some German CT site (http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg), shows the core steel columns, only concrete is the floor.

[Christophera]

Actually, I did maker a slight mistake in my calculations.

The 2 inch thickness of steel in the box columns was for higher up. They were 5 inches thick for the outer core columns, and 2 inches for the inner. So, we take an average of that (there were the same number of inner columns as outer) as 3.5". That increases my steel cutting calculation by 75%, going from 60 tons to 105 tons, and from 64lb charges to 80 lb. charges.

Oh, and as far as your "half-mile away steel", the safe stand-off distance for an 80 lb. explosive charge is only 431 meters. It won't throw any debris farther than this (unless it has some sort of channeling/shaping to give a pressure build-up and a directional force). That's the safe standoff distance in the open, i.e. no cover at all. Those charges would have had several dozen feet of building to go through.

By the way, again from a CTer site:

Evidence of the core columns:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/index.html

World Trade Center Master Plans (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/masterplan/index.html)
Numerous construction photos (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/construction.html)

So, anything you'd like to add, Chris? Like, I dunno, some evidence? Some math and calculations maybe?

The CT site doesn't show any 47, 1300 foot columns from the demo images either.

You youself said that charges only need to be on one side. Right there is a directional force.

Your theory is very deficient, mostly because you can't show the steel core columns existed.

The other issue totally unaddressed in your theory is HOW the charges are set in close proximity to the steel core columns. Something absolutely needed. That requires lots of work and access to columns.

My scenario covers that completely and I have an entire website supported by many images and links covering data need to to rig delay paths and the opportunity to do so.

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

[Meffy]

Well we have:
Just so. I spoke for myself only. I've made no claims one way or the other, but merely expect -- no, demand -- that Christophera back up his own claims.

[Meffy]

You youself said that charges only need to be on one side. Right there is a directional force.
*marvels* You really don't understand the terms you're throwing around, do you?

[azazal]

Hah. After you fail to produce 1 image of steel core columns from the demolition photos, do you think you can be taken seriously enough by anyone to try and disprove your calculations.

The quantity of C4 you state is needed is grossly oversized.


HA!! you have to produce 1 photo of a concrete core under construction.

As for the C4, whom are we going to believe, Huntsman a man that has worked with C4 and several other forms of explosives, or a child that suffers from wax build-up in their ears?

[Hellbound]

Damn, this thread is good for my ego.

That may get dangerous after a bit. You all will have to cut back on complimenting my work, or I could get dangerous ;)

By the way, anyone who wants to check my variable values and formulas, if you're in the military you can go to the Army Reference Library (uses an AKO login, there's a link). There's a link on the right called "Field Manuals", then just look down the list for number 5-34, titled "Engineer's Field Data".

Everything is pulled from Chapter 9, Section 1, Demolitions.

For those not in the military, you can't access it this way. You can try to find a copy of FM 5-34, a lot of surplus stores will probably sell outdated copies. Or you can ask an Army buddy to show it to you :) I would offer to email it, but it's not for public dissemination (sorry).

[DavidJames]

The quantity of C4 you state is needed is grossly oversized.Show your math. Do you have anything to offer other then your opinions and distant photo's feature your unique interpretation of what they show.

[rikzilla]

Okay, I found an electronic version of Army FM 5-34, Engineer Field Data (also known as the "Engineer's Bible").

Let's calculate what we need to pulverize a concrete core vs. what we need to cut the steel columns.

Core Size: 87 feet by 133 feet.

Steel core: Consisted of 44 to 47 steel columns, which were from 32"x16" up to 52" x 22". For this quick calculation, we'll average these sizes and assume 47 columns at 42" x 19".

The formula for calculationg a steel-cutting charge (for cutting beams or girders) is P=3/8*A, where P is the TNT-equivalent, in pounds, and A is the cross-sectional area, in inches. Let's assume the sides of the steel box columns are 2 inches thick, then that gives us an A of 228 in2. That gives us P=85.5. C-4 has an REF of 1.34, which means we'd need (85.5/1.34) about 64 lbs. of C-4 per core column, or 2,998 lbs to cut all 47. Quite a bit. Note, however, that this does not consider the tension or other stress on the columns, and it also considers a single charge placement (not wrap-arounds, but that doesn't matter so much for steel cutting).

Now, let's look at concrete. We have a 17' thick wall, 133' by 87'. That gives us 6,324 ft2 of concrete in cross-section, 63,240 ft3 for a 10' height floor.
Now, Chris's theory suggests C-4 coated rebar every 4 feet, which means each charge must blow through 2 feet of concrete in radius (assume a 4'x4' destruction radius, or 16 ft2, or 64 ft[sup3[/sup]). The formula for breeching is P=R3KC, where P is the pounds of C-4, R is the radius, K is the material factor, and C is the tamping factor. For internal charges, C=1.0. The material factor for reinforced concrete (of .67 meters, our radius) is .96. So, that gives us (23*.96*1) 7.68 lbs per 16 square feet, or 3,035 pounds of C-4 to "cut" the concrete core.

Now, to be realistic:

For the steel, you'd need one cut per 30 foot or so to completely demolish the core. Let's say the core is 1200' tall. That means you'd need (40*2998)
119,920 lbs of C-4 to completely destroy the steel core (about 60 tons). In Chris's scenario, however, we're pulverizing the concrete core. The charges only have a 2 foot radius, so we need one "set" every 4 feet of height. That means we'd need (300*3035) 910,500 lbs. Over 455 tons.

Sorry, Chris, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Your "thin coating" of C-4 on the rebar would have to add up to (5*3035) 15,175 pounds per floor. That is NOT a thin coating. That's 7.5 tons of C-4, and it amounts to about to just over 4 pounds of C-4 per cubic foot of volume in the concrete wall. Over half the wall would have to be C-4.


Well that about does it then. Seems the "C-4 coated-rebar-theory" has met the same logical end as the "trillion-in-gold-stolen-in-the-night-theory". What I find interesting is that in both cases it's the CTers small-thinking that has undone them. They simply do not realize the scales, speeds, quantities, etc... they think they are thinking-big but they are simply not thinking at all. What they are doing is many times worse than simple stupidity. They're making authoritative sounding claims while assuming that the "sheeple" are too stupid to call them on it.

Who's stupid now?

-z

BTW Huntsman, you've done your ordinance duties....now for the important question: Wensleydale, or Cheddar??

:) :D ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The CT site doesn't show any 47, 1300 foot columns from the demo images either.

You youself said that charges only need to be on one side. Right there is a directional force.

Your theory is very deficient, mostly because you can't show the steel core columns existed.

The other issue totally unaddressed in your theory is HOW the charges are set in close proximity to the steel core columns. Something absolutely needed. That requires lots of work and access to columns.

My scenario covers that completely and I have an entire website supported by many images and links covering data need to to rig delay paths and the opportunity to do so.

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


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

[rikzilla]

HA!! you have to produce 1 photo of a concrete core under construction.

As for the C4, whom are we going to believe, Huntsman a man that has worked with C4 and several other forms of explosives, or a child that suffers from wax build-up in their ears?

Hopefully thats C-4 buildup in them ears!

-z

[Hellbound]

The CT site doesn't show any 47, 1300 foot columns from the demo images either.

You youself said that charges only need to be on one side. Right there is a directional force.

One side of each column, not one side of the entire core. And the explosives could easily be placed so the extra blast was directed inward. In any case, the explosive being next to the steel is not the same as tamping it into a hole inside concrete.

Your theory is very deficient, mostly because you can't show the steel core columns existed.

Just as you can't show the concrete core, not to the level of evidence you're asking for the steel core.

There are literally hundreds of links to construction photos, documents, reports, and documentaries that describe the steel core. We have some of the core columns recovered. You can see the core columns sticking up from the debris.

The other issue totally unaddressed in your theory is HOW the charges are set in close proximity to the steel core columns. Something absolutely needed. That requires lots of work and access to columns.

As opposed to setting hundreds of charges inside a concrete core? As opposed to having 2 inch layers of C-4 coating each piece of rebar?

My scenario covers that completely and I have an entire website supported by many images and links covering data need to to rig delay paths and the opportunity to do so.

Well, if that's all you need, gimme a week. I'll have a website up. YOUR website proves nothign, it's simply a repetition of the arguments you've made here, which fail to show a concrete core at all. AT BEST, you can only show how a concrete core might have still been possible, if everyone working on the WTC when it was built suffered from amnesia and cloaking technology was used and hallways change direction to follow the sun, and the Easter Bunny runs through your living room sh*tting golden chocolate missile pods.

And you have nothing to show how they could keep C-4 stable inside concrete (it is considered unreliable once it's wet, unless left in it's wrapper), an alkaline environment, for 30 years past it's shelf life without problem. You have nothign to show how that much C-4 could be used without the concrete core collapsing under its own weight. You have nothing to show that the rebar existed, was coated, or was in place except your own opinion and interpretation.

Still waiting on your math.

[Meffy]

Hopefully thats C-4 buildup in them ears!
"Careful with that ear candle, Eugene."
-- Pink Floyd, almost

[Hellbound]

BTW Huntsman, you've done your ordinance duties....now for the important question: Wensleydale, or Cheddar??

:) :D ;)

Well, that depends. Are you dropping a bridge, cratering a runway, or breeching a wall?

:D

Gotta run for a bit all, Dad's retirement ceremony this afternoon. Wife's waiting on me to get down from the office.

[CptColumbo]

*marvels* You really don't understand the terms you're throwing around, do you?
As I wrote earlier, Christophera, buy an English dictionary. Look up: "Evidence," "Realistice," and "Surity." Then you might see why we think you are foolish. You are using words and terms that IMO you don't understand completely or are making up.

[kevin]

The core column must be continous because the core is continous. If it is not continous it does not complete the "core", it is simply a structural element which is inside the core. It is not "of" the core because the core is continous.

Examine any product that has a core structure, you will see it is continous.

they didn't have problems making continuous columns for the exterior of the building, not a problem for the core. in fact every building that actually has a concrete core, also has continuous steel columns. funny how that works.

[Meffy]

Congrats to Huntsdad! *salute*

[NobbyNobbs]

Not a good answer for one who has not supported the structure they assert stood.


Not a good answer for one who has not supported the structure they assert stood.

[Christophera]

HA!! you have to produce 1 photo of a concrete core under construction.

As for the C4, whom are we going to believe, Huntsman a man that has worked with C4 and several other forms of explosives, or a child that suffers from wax build-up in their ears?

We have a view of the core that was never available during construction, the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) left of the spire, an interior box column.

Or 1/2 of the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) standing. No steel core columns are seen in any of these images, wherein I know the concrete core, something very hard to photograph at any time during construction, was actually shown more in the demo images more than at any other time except for the bottom 3 or 4 floors which the pedestrian usenet report identifies.

The photographs of the core base that were in the documentary should be on the Guardian site but were removed from the public archive before the Guardian site was created.

I show with the image of the top of the tower during construction which is zoomed and show the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), that they are not inside the core and what is in the core is much smaller. Not the massive columns that are seen in demo or ground zero images showing the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

i've shown the concrete core and that the steel core columns didn't exist. This however is no match for willful ignorance.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We have a view of the core that was never available during construction, the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) left of the spire, an interior box column.

Or 1/2 of the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) standing. No steel core columns are seen in any of these images, wherein I know the concrete core, something very hard to photograph at any time during construction, was actually shown more in the demo images more than at any other time except for the bottom 3 or 4 floors which the pedestrian usenet report identifies.

The photographs of the core base that were in the documentary should be on the Guardian site but were removed from the public archive before the Guardian site was created.

I show with the image of the top of the tower during construction which is zoomed and show the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), that they are not inside the core and what is in the core is much smaller. Not the massive columns that are seen in demo or ground zero images showing the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

i've shown the concrete core and that the steel core columns didn't exist. This however is no match for willful ignorance.


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

[CptColumbo]

We have a view of the core that was never available during construction, the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) left of the spire, an interior box column.

Or 1/2 of the WTC core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) standing. No steel core columns are seen in any of these images, wherein I know the concrete core, something very hard to photograph at any time during construction, was actually shown more in the demo images more than at any other time except for the bottom 3 or 4 floors which the pedestrian usenet report identifies.

The photographs of the core base that were in the documentary should be on the Guardian site but were removed from the public archive before the Guardian site was created.

I show with the image of the top of the tower during construction which is zoomed and show the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg), that they are not inside the core and what is in the core is much smaller. Not the massive columns that are seen in demo or ground zero images showing the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

i've shown the concrete core and that the steel core columns didn't exist. This however is no match for willful ignorance.
I don't see concrete core columns in those photos. The photographers are too far away and the area is covered by debris. Please provide photos of concrete core columns in the WTC towers, during construction of the WTC or any other time prior to it's collapse. Nothing else will do as far as photographs are concerned.

Still waiting for the math from earlier, or are you trying to change the subject so we might forget about your inablility to provide it.

[Christophera]

they didn't have problems making continuous columns for the exterior of the building, not a problem for the core. in fact every building that actually has a concrete core, also has continuous steel columns. funny how that works.

The perimeter box columns were not continous. They were the outside wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and were bolted together through a hole at the butt ends of the irregular panels assebled to make the perimeter wall. The inner wall of the outside tube was comprised of the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they were made continous by virtue of the 100% butt weld.

That weld is shown here on a column section from high up in the tower as the discolored portion right of the floor beam intersection. By grinding the surface the dimensions are maintained and the metal inside the weld is given cursory visual inspection for voids.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2290&stc=1&d=1151092783

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The perimeter box columns were not continous. They were the outside wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and were bolted together through a hole at the butt ends of the irregular panels assebled to make the perimeter wall. The inner wall of the outside tube was comprised of the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) and they were made continous by virtue of the 100% butt weld.

That weld is shown here on a column section from high up in the tower as the discolored portion right of the floor beam intersection. By grinding the surface the dimensions are maintained and the metal inside the weld is given cursory visual inspection for voids.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2290&stc=1&d=1151092783

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

[Johnny Pixels]

That weld is shown here on a column section from high up in the tower as the discolored portion right of the floor beam intersection. By grinding the surface the dimensions are maintained and the metal inside the weld is given cursory visual inspection for voids.


Funny, in my 3 months working as a trainee inspector, I never saw a single weld ground down to maintain dimensions. In fact I only ever saw one weld ground down. The welds I saw were on pressure vessels, high pressure pipelines, lifting beams, petrol tankers that kind of high spec stuff.

[azazal]

See this is what's ncie about all those CT nuts out there, they provide tons of data that they like to twist and manipulate.

VIDEO: Collapes of the tower's core (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire_clip.avi)

Then there is this small, but show the core just after the majority of the tower has fallen (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/zoom1.jpg)

More from a CT nut case (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/ne-spire.htm) better shots of what's left of the core.

So go on, show how those images are concrete and not steel columns. Even the other 9/11 was an inside job nut cases proclaim that the core was steel. So please explain to us how you are the only on that knows the truth of this concrete core? Not the architects, the builders, the material suppliers, the crews that cleaned up ground zero, or even your fellow loonies?? How is it that you are the only one graced with this all powerful knowledge??

Better yet, go home and get you F[rule 8]ing shine box.

[Meffy]

Funny, in my 3 months working as a trainee inspector, I never saw a single weld ground down to maintain dimensions.
How can you even imagine that your real-world experience compares with Christophera's armchair speculation and imaginings? Credibility comes from creative mangling of uncertainty, not from <voicefx="la-de-da"> boring recitation of facts and numbers. </voicefx>

:-}

[kevin]

By grinding the surface the dimensions are maintained and the metal inside the weld is given cursory visual inspection for voids.

how do you visually inspect the inside of a weld? welds are solid metal.

here's a picture of them working on the exterior columns, hmm those look an awful lot like bolts or rivets....

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197702

[Johnny Pixels]

how do you visually inspect the inside of a weld? welds are solid metal.

here's a picture of them working on the exterior columns, hmm those look an awful lot like bolts or rivets....

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=197702

I thought he meant on the inside of the box section, but thinking about it, how can you look there if there columns are continuous?

[Christophera]

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

I'm being selective because the infiltrators of the government you support violated laws. Can you say your ignorance of evidence showing the FEMA steel column core as a lie has such justification.

What laws did the 3000 dead violate that you would be so prejudice againts them or against I who simply seeks to see that it does not happen again by using the truth as I can show it?

[Meffy]

I wonder whether Christophera can even visualize all this stuff... the concrete that sunlight shines through, tubes within tubes, wheels within wheels...

But that's irrelevant. Christophera, please show the calculations you used to determine that Huntsman was wrong. The longer you evade, the less likely you will ever earn a speck of credibility.

Huntsman did the dirty work despite not being obligated to do so. Because you made extraordinary claims, you are so obligated. But you won't or can't. Yet you say you are to be believed and he is not. =9_9= Really, now.

[Christophera]

Funny, in my 3 months working as a trainee inspector, I never saw a single weld ground down to maintain dimensions. In fact I only ever saw one weld ground down. The welds I saw were on pressure vessels, high pressure pipelines, lifting beams, petrol tankers that kind of high spec stuff.

Guess you never had to 2nd guess the next phase when you weren't taking time to see exactly where the next floor falls. If that weld fell 10 inches left of where it is, it would interfere with putting the beams on.

[Meffy]

I'm being selective because the infiltrators of the government you support violated laws. Can you say your ignorance of evidence showing the FEMA steel column core as a lie has such justification.

What laws did the 3000 dead violate that you would be so prejudice againts them or against I who simply seeks to see that it does not happen again by using the truth as I can show it?
Again when caught in your own inability to provide evidence, you resort to trying to squirm out using (totally fabricated and fantastic) emotional appeals. [edit: and paranoiac fantasy too, it appears... whuff...] Can't you see how dishonest a tactic this is on your part?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm being selective because the infiltrators of the government

Show they exist

you support
You know nothing about who I do, or do not support, don't use strawmen

violated laws.
Evidence?

Can you say your ignorance
Stop with the ad homs

of evidence showing the FEMA steel column core as a lie has such justification.

You are the one making the claim, not I.


What laws did the 3000 dead violate that you would be so prejudice againts them or against I who simply seeks to see that it does not happen again by using the truth as I can show it?
Stop with the ad homs

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

[Christophera]

Then there is this small, but show the core just after the majority of the tower has fallen (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/zoom1.jpg) Better yet, go home and get you F[rule 8]ing shine box.

Your attempt to deceive is obvious. Your image.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2291&stc=1&d=1151095618

Is a part of a bigger image which I know very well and shows the spire, an interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) near the corner of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2292&stc=1&d=1151095658

interior box columns are outside the core as shown by this image of the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg),

All of the above images should show steel columns in the core area but do not. Because the steel core columns did not exist.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your attempt to deceive is obvious. Your image.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2291&stc=1&d=1151095618

Is a part of a bigger image which I know very well and shows the spire, an interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) near the corner of the core.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2292&stc=1&d=1151095658

interior box columns are outside the core as shown by this image of the ...,

All of the above images should show steel columns in the core area but do not. Because the steel core columns did not exist.

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

[Christophera]

What laws did the 3000 dead violate that you would be so prejudice againts them or against I who simply seeks to see that it does not happen again by using the truth as I can show it?

Stop with the ad homs


I've asked a question. What laws did they violate to justify your ignorance of images that reveal the inner core of the tower? I'm showing your selectivity of evidence is unreasonable.

[Meffy]

I've asked a question. What laws did they violate to justify your ignorance of images that reveal the inner core of the tower?
I ask you a question. What army of pixies twisted your hair into those funny pigtails?

Meaningless question, isn't it? As is yours.

[edit] Oh, yes: Again. Show us your calculations or admit that you cannot refute Huntsman's demonstration.

[kevin]

Architect David Jansen, a partner in Mississauga, Ontario-based Adamson Associates, describes a similar strategy. Adamson Associates, working with Cesar Pelli & Associates as design consultants, acted as executive architects for the Petronas Towers at Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC), currently the world's tallest buildings. The same team also designed London's Canary Wharf tower and the World Financial Center immediately south of the WTC site in New York (the Mississauga firm is overseeing remedial work on the World Financial Center, which suffered considerable damage to the building envelope but which remained structurally sound). In the aftermath of September 11, Jansen says, his firm has identified a range of issues for consideration, many of which coincide with the CTBUH task force's list.

Jansen notes that one of the first steps his firm took following the attacks was to conduct a detailed worldwide code comparison to see how building standards might be improved. "The World Trade Centre didn't have concrete cores; in New York, cores are built out of steel," Jansen says, adding that this is a local tradition founded on what is "primarily a labour issue." Professor Graubner noted that reinforced concrete stairwells might "have enhanced evacuation and conceivably resisted the fire longer."

Jansen notes that providing concrete cores in lieu of steel, where appropriate, is just one item among many currently under review

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?id=70688&story_id=CA109497&issue=11012001&PC=

[Christophera]

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

Sorry. The infiltrators of the government that have killed innocent Americans removed the few pictures of the core during construction before 9-11 because they knew that people wouldn't believe the imapct/fire/collapse lie if they knew there was a concrete core.
Here is a statement by the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've asked a question. What laws did they violate to justify your ignorance of images that reveal the inner core of the tower? I'm showing your selectivity of evidence is unreasonable.

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

[Christophera]

I ask you a question. What army of pixies twisted your hair into those funny pigtails?

Meaningless question, isn't it? As is yours.

[edit] Oh, yes: Again. Show us your calculations or admit that you cannot refute Huntsman's demonstration.

You failure to answer my questions in a way respectful of our Constitution and laws control over our government show that you might not support those things.

[azazal]

Your attempt to deceive is obvious. Your image.


interior box columns are outside the core as shown by this image of the core wall at the base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg),




By the gods, is you head made of concrete? Did I call them my images? No I clearly pointed out that they came from your fellow nut jobs.

And you attempts to deceive is clearly shown, you 3 inch rebar pricture has been shown to NOT BE REBAR yet you cling to falacy like a drowning man to a rope, why is that? Are you so deluded that you are unable to accept that you a wrong? Would the revelation that you are the only one that can see a concrete core cause you to slide into such a suicidal depresion that you could never escape? What is your problem?


and way to go on ignoring the other bit of info that show that core was made of steel columns, you know the pics form other angles and the video.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry. The infiltrators of the government that have killed innocent Americans removed the few pictures of the core during construction before 9-11 because they knew that people wouldn't believe the imapct/fire/collapse lie if they knew there was a concrete core.

How do you know they removed them? Provide your evidence supporting this claim or stfu.


Here is a statement by the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

That is a picture of something typed. Prove it comes from where you claim or stfu.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You failure to answer my questions in a way respectful of our Constitution and laws control over our government show that you might not support those things.

Stop with the ad homs. Provide evidence supporting your claims or shut the f*** up.

[Meffy]

You failure to answer my questions in a way respectful of our Constitution and laws control over our government show that you might not support those things.
Nonsense, fabrication, evasion, and denial.

Show us your maths. Your continued failure to do so is dragging you ever downward. If you truly believe you are in the right, you're cheating your own cause by this intransigence.

[mortimer]

Sorry. The infiltrators of the government that have killed innocent Americans removed the few pictures of the core during construction before 9-11 because they knew that people wouldn't believe the imapct/fire/collapse lie if they knew there was a concrete core.


You still have not provided evidence of government infiltrators being involved in designing or constructing the core, nor of the government entities involved in the manufacture and delivery of C4-coated 3" rebar. Please do so.

[Christophera]

Again when caught in your own inability to provide evidence, you resort to trying to squirm out using (totally fabricated and fantastic) emotional appeals. [edit: and paranoiac fantasy too, it appears... whuff...] Can't you see how dishonest a tactic this is on your part?

Yes, emotional appeals, and justified because 3000 people died and it was not properly investigated. You, when caught in your inability to support the FEMA steel core columns have resorted to far more than anything you accuse me of.

I clearly see a program of marginalization collusively executed wherein the group of deniers collectively demands from me the same the same thing I've been demanding from it since the beginning after I've been providing what they demand from the beginning while they collectively refused to see it and evaded ever producing anything of what I demanded by group action. Now the group will pretend it is fully justified in some outrage or another and seek to get me banned.

Typical rumsfeld failure.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, emotional appeals, and justified because 3000 people died and it was not properly investigated. You, when caught in your inability to support the FEMA steel core columns have resorted to far more than anything you accuse me of.

I clearly see a program of marginalization collusively executed wherein the group of deniers collectively demands from me the same the same thing I've been demanding from it since the beginning after I've been providing what they demand from the beginning while they collectively refused to see it and evaded ever producing anything of what I demanded by group action. Now the group will pretend it is fully justified in some outrage or another and seek to get me banned.

Typical rumsfeld failure.


http://www.petebevin.com/kittens/full.php?img=CAT_0040.JPG

[pchams]

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?id=70688&story_id=CA109497&issue=11012001&PC=
Oh those danged Canadians using science and evidence again. ;)
Notice Christophera completely ignored this excellent first hand evidence.

[Meffy]

Be as emotional as you like, but that proves nothing and weakens your case. You display unsurprising ignorance of the political leanings of those you attack. But never mind that.

Show your calculations. The longer you refuse to show the goods or admit you are wrong, the lower your stock is dropping.

[edit] And the worse job you do as a representative of your theory.

[Christophera]

Then there is this small, but show the core just after the majority of the tower has fallen (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/zoom1.jpg).


YOU present it as the core.

Caught in a lie done to cover a lie.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

YOU present it as the core.

Caught in a lie done to cover a lie.

Still trying to shift the burden of proof eh? STFU

[Christophera]

Be as emotional as you like, but that proves nothing and weakens your case. You display unsurprising ignorance of the political leanings of those you attack. But never mind that.

Show your calculations. The longer you refuse to show the goods or admit you are wrong, the lower your stock is dropping.

[edit] And the worse job you do as a representative of your theory.

It is a scenario, and It happens to be the only site on the web that comes close to explaining near free fall speeds and pulverization of the contents of the towers.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is a scenario, and It happens to be the only site on the web that comes close to explaining near free fall speeds and pulverization of the contents of the towers.

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

That site uses only analysis of post-collapse pictures.

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

[Christophera]

Still trying to shift the burden of proof eh? STFU

From you this is an admission of guilt.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

From you this is an admission of guilt.

Of what? Since when is pointing out a logical fallacy an admission of anything.

Do you have any evidence to present that is of value to scientific/forensic investigation; such as math, expert testimony from professionals in a relevent field, pictures of a concrete core (from before the collapse), etc. If not, stfu.

[Meffy]

From you this is an admission of guilt.
No. It's an explanation of how you're supposed to conduct a discussion. How you aren't.

If you do not show the calculations you used to declare false Huntsman's analysis of the supposed C-4, I will take that as an admission that you cannot refute it and therefore must, to be intellectually honest, retract your accusation that his figures are incorrect.

Show your maths now. Or you are conceding defeat.

[pchams]

"Jansen notes that one of the first steps his firm took following the attacks was to conduct a detailed worldwide code comparison to see how building standards might be improved. "The World Trade Centre didn't have concrete cores; in New York, cores are built out of steel," Jansen says, adding that this is a local tradition founded on what is "primarily a labour issue." Professor Graubner noted that reinforced concrete stairwells might "have enhanced evacuation and conceivably resisted the fire longer."

What say you Christophera?
Are the Canadians in on the cover up?
This conspiracy has to be the best cover up in history.

[Christophera]

Nonsense, fabrication, evasion, and denial.

Show us your maths. Your continued failure to do so is dragging you ever downward. If you truly believe you are in the right, you're cheating your own cause by this intransigence.

One cannot reasonably pretend to do math defining the appropriate loading for demolition as Huntsman has unless they account for the actual structure. His K value skews his calculations and he never explains how the charges he defines are set for the column cutting. He certainly never dealt with the issue of the changed appearance of the event by all the uncontained high explosives going off.

I won't pretend I have the time, energy or even skill to calculate the loading required for either what I know stood, or what you seek to support as the structure.

You cannot reasonably conduct any investigation/calculation/analysis without knowing what strcuture actually stood and the steel core columns never appear where they should in the demolition images.

it's plain, its simple. You folks are fake. You don't care about the Constitution the citizens of this nation depend on, you support the lie of the instrument of its demise.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

One cannot reasonably pretend to do math defining the appropriate loading for demolition as Huntsman has unless they account for the actual structure. His K value skews his calculations and he never explains how the charges he defines are set for the column cutting. He certainly never dealt with the issue of the changed appearance of the event by all the uncontained high explosives going off.

I won't pretend I have the time, energy or even skill to calculate the loading required for either what I know stood, or what you seek to support as the structure.

You cannot reasonably conduct any investigation/calculation/analysis without knowing what strcuture actually stood and the steel core columns never appear where they should in the demolition images.


You cannot reasonably conduct any investigation/calculation/analysis without knowing what structure actually stood and the concrete core columns never appear in images.

[Christophera]

"Jansen notes that one of the first steps his firm took following the attacks was to conduct a detailed worldwide code comparison to see how building standards might be improved. "The World Trade Centre didn't have concrete cores; in New York, cores are built out of steel," Jansen says, adding that this is a local tradition founded on what is "primarily a labour issue." Professor Graubner noted that reinforced concrete stairwells might "have enhanced evacuation and conceivably resisted the fire longer."

What say you Christophera?
Are the Canadians in on the cover up?
This conspiracy has to be the best cover up in history.

If he was that quick to act, yes. The Canadian is in on it. Yep, best in history. Got your help.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If he was that quick to act, yes. The Canadian is in on it. Yep, best in history. Got your help.

Unless you can provide evidence this is nothing more than post hoc rationalization, which is another logical fallacy.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which you should see for further details.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Post%20hoc%20ergo%20propter%20hoc

[Meffy]

it's plain, its simple. You folks are fake. You don't care about the Constitution the citizens of this nation depend on, you support the lie of the instrument of its demise.
What part of "ad hominem attacks only weaken your position" don't you understand? As I see it you're dishonoring the dead but I won't use that as ammunition against you because it'd be intellectually dishonest of me to do so.

[azazal]

YOU present it as the core.

Caught in a lie done to cover a lie.


What in the hell are you talking about?? I say that's the core and I'm lying by calling it the core. Yet you are "truthful" by showing that same thing and calling it the core?

Are you at all familiar with Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)?????????????

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bah. Going home. Hopefully this thread will be in AAH by Monday.

[Meffy]

Bah. Going home. Hopefully this thread will be in AAH by Monday.
Agreed. It cannot progress in any direction.

[pchams]

I'd like to thank Christophera for the post count increase, and the chance to show the kids a perfect example that anyone can post complete nonsense on a webpage, and that it doesn't make it credible. An excellent lesson.
Thanks again.

[Christophera]

Total core are=133' * 87'=11571 ft2
Wall thickness=17'
Interior Dimensions=Exterior dimensions - near wall thickness - far wall thickness= width: 133-17-17=99, length: 87-17-17=53.
Interior area=99*53=5247 ft2
Cross-sectional area of concrete=Total Area-Core area=11571-5247=6,324 ft2


You hjave shown a complete lack of knowledge about explosives through your multiple comments here, beyond generalizations. SHOW me where I'm wrong. SHOW me your math. SHOW me how you do your calculations.

I'll be here.

If you must see calculations we will start at the beginning.

Your calculated value is NOT a cross sectional total. It is the horizontal area of the wall footprint.

Here is the cross sectional (vertical) of the core walls.

Core walls at base were 15 thick on the log axis and 17 on the short, 16 average. At the top they were 2 feet thick.

16+2 = 18 / 2 = 9 feet as the average thickness of one side of the core. 9 x 1300 (height) = 11700 SQ. FT. x 2 (walls) = 23,400.0 SQ. FT. for the total cross sectional area of the core.


I'm stopping with the calculations.

[Christophera]

What in the hell are you talking about?? I say that's the core and I'm lying by calling it the core. Yet you are "truthful" by showing that same thing and calling it the core?

Are you at all familiar with Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)?????????????

You are not a master of confusion. I present it as an interior box column.

Then there is this small, but show the core just after the majority of the tower has fallen (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/zoom1.jpg).


YOU present it as the core.

Caught in a lie done to cover a lie then caught again lying to cover the lie that was told to hide a lie hiding a lie.

You, ........... are probably a liar.

[Stellafane]

...Caught in a lie done to cover a lie then caught again lying to cover the lie that was told to hide a lie hiding a lie.

You, ........... are probably a liar.

Well, I must admit it took a lot longer than I thought it would, but it finally happened. Chris has snapped.

[Gravy]

Gravy's Guide to Increasing Your Core Competencies
1) See the Core
2) Be the Core

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904496d59e43d90.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904495b879cb1fb.jpg

[Apollyon]

Deleted.

It's not even worth replying.

[Hellbound]

One cannot reasonably pretend to do math defining the appropriate loading for demolition as Huntsman has unless they account for the actual structure. His K value skews his calculations and he never explains how the charges he defines are set for the column cutting. He certainly never dealt with the issue of the changed appearance of the event by all the uncontained high explosives going off.

What's wrong with the K value? Can you explain? Each charge must blast through a 2' radius around it to demolish the core.

For the column cutting, I explained numerous times. That's the amount needed for cutting the column if you just smack a huge dab of C-4 on it. If you want to know how they were set, I'll just claim they were placed there, in steel containers welded to the columns (thus air-tight) when the building was built. There. problem solved.

But it doesn't matter HOW the charges are set. Do you admit you were wrong when you claimed that the amount of explosive needed to cut steel columns would be greater than that needed for a concrete core?

I won't pretend I have the time, energy or even skill to calculate the loading required for either what I know stood, or what you seek to support as the structure.

You cannot reasonably conduct any investigation/calculation/analysis without knowing what strcuture actually stood and the steel core columns never appear where they should in the demolition images.

And you can't show anything to support a concrete core. None of the workers at ground zero mention a concrete core. Every structural engineer who speaks of the towers talk about a steel core. You can't prove a concrete core.

it's plain, its simple. You folks are fake. You don't care about the Constitution the citizens of this nation depend on, you support the lie of the instrument of its demise.

I have bled for the Constitution of this nation. I have spent years away from my family and friends for the Constitution of this nation. I have been up to my elbows in blood, under fire, holding an artery shut in an attempt to save a life for the Constitution of this nation. I have personally saved the life of four of our nation's enemies, defeated in battle, because I believe not only in the Constitution of this nation but also that the principles therein should be applied to all men, equally.

Don't you DARE step on to this thread, posting anonymous b*llsh*t from a recliner on the Internet, and tell me I don't care about the Constitution of this nation.

The reason you're ABLE to post on the Internet, and spout your nonsense, is because people like me are WILLING to put our lives on the line to make sure this nation stays around long enough for its Constitution to make a difference.

[Christophera]

What's wrong with the K value? Can you explain? Each charge must blast through a 2' radius around it to demolish the core.

For the column cutting, I explained numerous times. That's the amount needed for cutting the column if you just smack a huge dab of C-4 on it. If you want to know how they were set, I'll just claim they were placed there, in steel containers welded to the columns (thus air-tight) when the building was built. There. problem solved.

But it doesn't matter HOW the charges are set. Do you admit you were wrong when you claimed that the amount of explosive needed to cut steel columns would be greater than that needed for a concrete core?



And you can't show anything to support a concrete core. None of the workers at ground zero mention a concrete core. Every structural engineer who speaks of the towers talk about a steel core. You can't prove a concrete core.



I have bled for the Constitution of this nation. I have spent years away from my family and friends for the Constitution of this nation. I have been up to my elbows in blood, under fire, holding an artery shut in an attempt to save a life for the Constitution of this nation. I have personally saved the life of four of our nation's enemies, defeated in battle, because I believe not only in the Constitution of this nation but also that the principles therein should be applied to all men, equally.

Don't you DARE step on to this thread, posting anonymous b*llsh*t from a recliner on the Internet, and tell me I don't care about the Constitution of this nation.

The reason you're ABLE to post on the Internet, and spout your nonsense, is because people like me are WILLING to put our lives on the line to make sure this nation stays around long enough for its Constitution to make a difference.

You got to support the truth then, because that is all what is for. Makes me wish I was still just talking on the 11 meter rig.

You have not addressed the fact you calculated the horizontal footprint area and then called it the cross sectional area total. Whattsa' matta, your (mis) information team screw up and feed you the wrong stuff?

To pretend all of this BS calculation you've done is meaningfu or valid is absurd when your team has not even established with forensic photographic evidence while the truth team has proven beyond a shadow (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) of doubt that no steel core columns existed.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Gravy]

And you can't show anything to support a concrete core. None of the workers at ground zero mention a concrete core. Every structural engineer who speaks of the towers talk about a steel core. You can't prove a concrete core.
Get ready for a photo of a column of smoke and dust in 3...2...1...

[Christophera]

Get ready for a photo of a column of smoke and dust in 3...2...1...

No column of smoke, just the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Gravy,

How about explaining why no core columns show anywhere in the area right of the interior box columns. That is the interior of the core.

[Gravy]

Christophera, the more you post, the more you hide from questions. That must take a lot of energy.

Where's the hallway diagram you promised? That was days ago. What's the problem? Please explain.

How many floors were built each time before the concrete core was poured? Was it 7, 17, 0r 27? Please explain how that was done.

Where's your evidence of the collapse of your 600-foot-tall remaining concrete core, a collapse that completely turned it – and all its steel rebar –*into invisible dust. Please stop running and provide your evidence.

[DavidJames]

To pretend all of this BS calculation you've done is meaningfu or valid is absurd when your team has not even established with forensic photographic evidence while the truth team has proven beyond a shadow (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) of doubt that no steel core columns existed.You are an embarrassment, I truly feel sorry for you.

[Hellbound]

If you must see calculations we will start at the beginning.

Your calculated value is NOT a cross sectional total. It is the horizontal area of the wall footprint.

Um....the horizontal plane is the cross-section. And I was using the 17' thick figure you gave repeatedly.

The cross-sectional area is primarily important in the steel cutting, as that determines the charge amount. For a concrete core, the charge sizes for individual charges stay the same, the only reason the area was needed was to determine how many charge needed to be placed for each 4' of vertical height.

If you're cutting it horizontally, then the horizontal cross-section is what's important. The vertical doesn't matter.

Here is the cross sectional (vertical) of the core walls.

Vertical cross-section? There's no need for that.

Core walls at base were 15 thick on the log axis and 17 on the short, 16 average. At the top they were 2 feet thick.

16+2 = 18 / 2 = 9 feet as the average thickness of one side of the core. 9 x 1300 (height) = 11700 SQ. FT. x 2 (walls) = 23,400.0 SQ. FT. for the total cross sectional area of the core.


I'm stopping with the calculations.

We don't need the vertical cross-section, but we can work with that one too. It's easier to use the horizontal, though, because of the nature of the structure. However, the way you've calculated it won't work, as two sides of the core are longer than the other two, so a straight average of the thickness between them won't work.

You'd have 9 ft average width for the short axis, and 8.5 ft average width for the long. That gives an internal area of (133'-8.5-8.5) 116 feet by (87-9-9) 69 ft. Subtract these (11571 total-80004 internal) and you have 3,567 ft2 for a horizontal cross section.

Now, each charge will take out 64 ft3, assuming absolute optimal placement. So, the volume of the concrete core (using the 1200' height we used for steel, for comparison) is (1200' * 3567 ft2) 4,280,400 ft3. Divide that by our 64 cubic feet and you get about 67,000 charges. Multiply that by our 7.68 lb. charge size and we still get 513,648 lbs of C-4, or about 257 tons.

Still more than twice as much for steel (even using large, hastily placed, non shaped charges for the steel cutting).

[Gravy]

No column of smoke, just the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Gravy,

How about explaining why no core columns show anywhere in the area right of the interior box columns. That is the interior of the core.

I believe the technical answer is that you're an idiot.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449c70faca36d.jpg

[Hellbound]

You got to support the truth then, because that is all what is for. Makes me wish I was still just talking on the 11 meter rig.

You have not addressed the fact you calculated the horizontal footprint area and then called it the cross sectional area total. Whattsa' matta, your (mis) information team screw up and feed you the wrong stuff?

To pretend all of this BS calculation you've done is meaningfu or valid is absurd when your team has not even established with forensic photographic evidence while the truth team has proven beyond a shadow (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg) of doubt that no steel core columns existed.

http://concretecore.741.com

You are an absolute idiot.

That was a horizontal cross-section. That's typically what cross-section means when your talking about a tall, vertical cloumn. I calculated the amount of charge needed to pulverize the concrete across a horizontal cross-section, then extrapolated that for the height of the column.

The Horizontal cross-section is what is needed for cutting steel, if you cut across the horizontal plane. Fo rthe concrete, it made no difference to the calculation. All you need in it is the volume. Doesn't matter if I work that from cross-sectional area or vertical slice area. EAch way shoudl work out to the same total volume. Doing it using a vertical cross-section complicates the calculation (because you have the two wall sections that are completely solid, and the hollow interior, so your cross-section changes as you move across the core figuring your total volume). From bottom to top, assumign the taper is even, you can average the minimum and maximum widths and assume an equal cross-section throughout, and you'll get the same total volume.

You really have NO idea how explosives work, do you? And apparently have no idea what to do with geometry or algebra.

Since you claim they were only 2' thick at the top, my adjusted calculations are above. You still need 2 lbs of C-4 per cubic foot of concrete column to pulverize it. It would still collapse under it's own weight due to loss of structural integrity. You'd have to have each 4' length of rebar surrounded by a layer of 128 lbs. of C-4. Heck, even if we said 10 lbs per 4' rebar would do it, you'd STILL have structural issues with a concrete core.

There's no way that C-4 coated rebar in a reinforced concrete core could contain enough C-4 to pulverize the core, as you claim. That disregards the other problems with your idea.

[Gravy]

You are an embarrassment, I truly feel sorry for you.
deleted. wrong reply.

[Gravy]

I have bled for the Constitution of this nation. I have spent years away from my family and friends for the Constitution of this nation. I have been up to my elbows in blood, under fire, holding an artery shut in an attempt to save a life for the Constitution of this nation. I have personally saved the life of four of our nation's enemies, defeated in battle, because I believe not only in the Constitution of this nation but also that the principles therein should be applied to all men, equally.

Don't you DARE step on to this thread, posting anonymous b*llsh*t from a recliner on the Internet, and tell me I don't care about the Constitution of this nation.

The reason you're ABLE to post on the Internet, and spout your nonsense, is because people like me are WILLING to put our lives on the line to make sure this nation stays around long enough for its Constitution to make a difference.

And thank you for that.

[Gravy]

You'd have to have each 4' length of rebar surrounded by a layer of 128 lbs. of C-4.
Only the closed-minded would see a problem with that. I believe you may be experiencing frontal lobe asphyxia, Huntsman.

[Darat]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.

[Gravy]

No column of smoke, just the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg).

Gravy,

How about explaining why no core columns show anywhere in the area right of the interior box columns. That is the interior of the core.
Oh, and while you're lecturing psople about cores, allow me to remind you that yesterday you didn't even know what BUILDING this was, Mr. "I have two websites."

[Gravy]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.
What if this is all I live for?
:D
It's good advice. I shouldn't have had coffee this evening.


eta: When I first read your post I thought it said, "go do somebody you enjoy in real life," which is also good advice.

[Hellbound]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.

So true, Darat.

Just certain things get me, like armchair generals who've never been within 20 feet of a foreign national telling me I don't care about the Constitution.

But point taken, on my end at least.

By the way, Meffy:

Thanks for the congrats to Huntsdad. I think he's already planning a larger garden, and he and Huntsmom are taking a trip to Florida soon. I believe he's getting off to a good start :)

[bob_kark]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.

Such as not beating your head against a brick wall?*

*referring to either side attempting to change the other's opinion/logical reasoning.

[Christophera]

If you must see calculations we will start at the beginning.

Your calculated value is NOT a cross sectional total. It is the horizontal area of the wall footprint.

Here is the cross sectional (vertical) of the core walls.

Core walls at base were 15 thick on the log axis and 17 on the short, 16 average. At the top they were 2 feet thick.

16+2 = 18 / 2 = 9 feet as the average thickness of one side of the core. 9 x 1300 (height) = 11700 SQ. FT. x 2 (walls) = 23,400.0 SQ. FT. for the total cross sectional area of the core.


I'm stopping with the calculations.


You are an absolute idiot.

That was a horizontal cross-section. That's typically what cross-section means when your talking about a tall, vertical cloumn. I calculated the amount of charge needed to pulverize the concrete across a horizontal cross-section, then extrapolated that for the height of the column.

The Horizontal cross-section is what is needed for cutting steel, if you cut across the horizontal plane. Fo rthe concrete, it made no difference to the calculation. All you need in it is the volume. Doesn't matter if I work that from cross-sectional area or vertical slice area. EAch way shoudl work out to the same total volume. Doing it using a vertical cross-section complicates the calculation (because you have the two wall sections that are completely solid, and the hollow interior, so your cross-section changes as you move across the core figuring your total volume). From bottom to top, assumign the taper is even, you can average the minimum and maximum widths and assume an equal cross-section throughout, and you'll get the same total volume.

You really have NO idea how explosives work, do you? And apparently have no idea what to do with geometry or algebra.

Since you claim they were only 2' thick at the top, my adjusted calculations are above. You still need 2 lbs of C-4 per cubic foot of concrete column to pulverize it. It would still collapse under it's own weight due to loss of structural integrity. You'd have to have each 4' length of rebar surrounded by a layer of 128 lbs. of C-4. Heck, even if we said 10 lbs per 4' rebar would do it, you'd STILL have structural issues with a concrete core.

There's no way that C-4 coated rebar in a reinforced concrete core could contain enough C-4 to pulverize the core, as you claim. That disregards the other problems with your idea.



That was a horizontal cross-section. That's typically what cross-section means when your talking about a tall, vertical cloumn.

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.

But most importantly, not one of the steel core camp has produced on photo of the supposed steel core columns while the cnocrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is obvious to see.

[Hellbound]

And thank you for that.

No thanks needed. It's what I do ;)

But I appreciate the thanks anyway :D

[pchams]

I see.
Christophera may be a disinformation agent for the real culprits.
I think 'The Simpsons' writers may have put it best, and I paraphrase:
"The Space People, in cooperation with the Rand Corporation, in accordance with the Reverse Vampires" are probably responsible for the huge cover up.
They use mind control(mostly through chemtrails), and Amway products to do most of the work.

It's true :)

[Apollyon]

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.
A cross-section can be horizontal, vertical, diagonal, or just about any way you want to slice it.

Please stop while you are already so far behind. You are digging your hole of ignorance even deeper.

[Hellbound]

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.

But most importantly, not one of the steel core camp has produced on photo of the supposed steel core columns while the cnocrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is obvious to see.

*sigh*

Makes no real difference. Show that my volume calculations are incorrect, then you might have a starting point. Doesn't matter if I called it a Flaming Nacho, the volume is still calculated correctly, and thus the number of charges needed for pulverization of a supposed concrete core.

[Gravy]

Such as not beating your head against a brick wall?*

*referring to either side attempting to change the other's opinion/logical reasoning.
I'm going to go feed Pardalis's budgies.

[Johnny Pixels]

Guess you never had to 2nd guess the next phase when you weren't taking time to see exactly where the next floor falls. If that weld fell 10 inches left of where it is, it would interfere with putting the beams on.

You know, buildings are made to plans. They don't stick welds in where they feel like it. It's all designed.

And for a continuous welded column, that sure looks like its bolted.

[Meffy]

Thanks for the congrats to Huntsdad. I think he's already planning a larger garden, and he and Huntsmom are taking a trip to Florida soon. I believe he's getting off to a good start :)
All reety all righty. It's an ill thread that blows no good.

[pchams]

These guys are in on it:
http://www.crsi.org/contractors/ecr.html
Epoxy = C4

It's true :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

*sigh*

Makes no real difference. Show that my volume calculations are incorrect, then you might have a starting point. Doesn't matter if I called it a Flaming Nacho, the volume is still calculated correctly, and thus the number of charges needed for pulverization of a supposed concrete core.


So, you're saying that Flaming Nacho + 257 tons of C4 => long day on the toilet?

[Pardalis]

Christophera, pease watch carefully the pictures of the WTC1 rubble on this site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/


Do you see the steel core columns? YES or NO

[NobbyNobbs]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.


Excellent advice, Darat. I'm off for an evening of poker. I'm not looking at this thread again for two days. If we're still arguing about the core at that point, *then* I'll allow my brain to explode.

In a controlled, free fall demolition.

[Meffy]

I'm hoping for recipes (not to include C-4 nor other explosives, excepting the various cheeses) and kittens. But there's no point in continuing a debate in which one side can't play by the rules, so I'm gone from that bootless bruit.

[twinstead]

Sorry. The infiltrators of the government that have killed innocent Americans removed the few pictures of the core during construction before 9-11 because they knew that people wouldn't believe the imapct/fire/collapse lie if they knew there was a concrete core.
Here is a statement by the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg)

Oh, you can't provide conclusive pictures and other evidence because the evil gubment 'removed' all of the pictures before 911. Just how was that accomplished? did they send NINJA accross the world removing pictures from every city in every nation on Earth? LOL

Total BS. You are worthless. Totally worthless. Thank God you are totally wrong, because if you were right you would still not be believed because you are a totally crazy paranoid fool.

Pity.

[twinstead]

Oh, and while you're at it christophera, perhaps you could find one, just ONE person involved in the construction of the WTC that can legitimately verify that there was indeed a concrete core.

I wonder how many you could find that would testify that in a court of law. I wonder what chemicals you are missing in your brain.

None of these questions will ever be answered.

[kevin]

I see.
Christophera may be a disinformation agent for the real culprits.
I think 'The Simpsons' writers may have put it best, and I paraphrase:
"The Space People, in cooperation with the Rand Corporation, in accordance with the Reverse Vampires" are probably responsible for the huge cover up.
They use mind control(mostly through chemtrails), and Amway products to do most of the work.

It's true :)

You forgot Major League Baseball!

[TheFeds]

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.No, that's simply not true. In engineering, as in math, a cross-section is the view of an object, once material has been removed in one direction from any arbitrary cutting plane. I emphasize that it may be defined at any positions and angles.

Here is the mathematical way of expressing the concept of an arbitrary cross-section, and an example of why we can use any cross-section to perform Huntsman's calculations (except that he chooses the one that he does, because it is computationally simpler). If you were taught integration in high school, you'll remember that when taking the triple integral of dx dy dz in Cartesian 3-space (which is equivalent to the solid integral of dV, which equals V, the volume), you may perform it in any order. Furthermore, you may define a new co-ordinate system (u v w), which is offset from (x y z). If you triple-integrate du dv dw, you get the solid integral of dV—the same V (i.e. volume) as previously. Now take any two of those dimensions, like u and v, and you've got yourself a cutting plane, and a cross-section. And dV is the differential volume, which is an important quantity when calculating uniform blast effects. Since we can get it by working in the standard Cartesian co-ordinates (x y z), or in the arbitrary Cartesian co-ordinates (u v w), we conclude that it is possible to choose Huntsman's cross-section and still get a correct result.

Please don't try to combat this by arguing that basic calculus is wrong. (Unless, of course, you can prove it.)

[kevin]

I'm hoping for recipes (not to include C-4 nor other explosives, excepting the various cheeses) and kittens.

It's a well known fact that the coolest cats use Macs.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/5789449c884b5f149.jpg

And believe me, you don't want recipes from me.

[azazal]

To all participants, if you find your emotions are starting to override your reasoning it may be time to take a few deep breaths and go and do something you enjoy in real life.


Never has greater advise been given. Already mowed the lawn, played with my daughter, chilling out. So with that I say adue to Chris, for I can only deal with idiots for so long. As an ex comptuer support desk guy, he has truly tried my patients more then any call ever, and while it was fun, it is pointless. We could travel back in time and show him the construction of WTC 1 and 2 and he would still claim to see concrete columns. For those that continue the good fight, good luck. For Chris, whatever.

[Blue Mountain]

Gravy's Guide to Increasing Your Core Competencies
1) See the Core
2) Be the Core


The core is mother, the core is father.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Meffy]

It's a well known fact that the coolest cats use Macs.
... and cheeses?

And believe me, you don't want recipes from me.
Well, sign the cat up then! :-}

[kevin]

... and cheeses?

Only if it's really stinky cheeses.

[Christophera]

Oh, you can't provide conclusive pictures and other evidence because the evil gubment 'removed' all of the pictures before 911. Just how was that accomplished? did they send NINJA accross the world removing pictures from every city in every nation on Earth? LOL

Total BS. You are worthless. Totally worthless. Thank God you are totally wrong, because if you were right you would still not be believed because you are a totally crazy paranoid fool.

Pity.

No, .............. you can't recognize core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)s and other evidence because you support the infiltrators of the govenment. The conclusive image of the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) has been here since the beginning. The conclusive image of the concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg) of WTC 1 holding up the spire combines with the core image in showing that NO core columns existed.

The conclusive image of the core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) shows CONCRETE with high tensile rebar and, GUESS WHAT, no steel core columns.

Then there is the evidence from history, the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg). Prominent structural engineers published reports.

http://tinyurl.com/lgrpo

Face it, you guys are either agents in rumsfelds new anti blog campaign or duped by them. Or just plain supporting the lie because of very deep social fears.

NOTE: Examine all the evidence twinstead refers to.

[TheFeds]

Face it, you guys are either agents in rumsfelds new anti blog campaign or duped by them. Or just plain supporting the lie because of very deep social fears.I bear no allegiance to your government, nor to any conspirators who would seek to destroy it. I'm not a blogger, and haven't read any lately which deal with the 9/11 conspiracies. I don't have "social fears", because I live in a progressive and free nation. Basically, I haven't been exposed to a misinformation campaign, unless I count your position on this matter.

So why would I be a tool of your conspiracy? I've got nothing to do with it, and haven't been influenced by it, if it exists.

By the way, when you believe that much of the world is against you, for no good reason, it's time to seek the advice of a medical professional. Or, alternatively, provide proof that the conspiracy really exists.

So, let's have it: what makes you so sure that a conspiracy exists? No more concrete vs. steel (since you've already established that you're only guessing at a low-resolution shot of the collapse, and an indistinct shot of the aftermath, and refuse to make simple inquiries in order to obtain the real documentation). No more talk about C-4 (since Huntsman has taken you through the way those calculations are performed by engineers, and shown that not only would C-4 be impractical for the purpose, but it would also render the concrete structurally unsound by eliminating the tensile strength imposed by the rebar). Actually, we don't mind talking about these things, but we cannot educate you on basic engineering practice, if you refuse to respect the need to verify your guesses with empirical data and calculations. So, talk about what you can surely prove, and give us irrefutable evidence that such a conspiracy exists.

It's either that, or discussing cheeses with the others.

[Christophera]

No, that's simply not true. In engineering, as in math, a cross-section is the view of an object, once material has been removed in one direction from any arbitrary cutting plane. I emphasize that it may be defined at any positions and angles.

Here is the mathematical way of expressing the concept of an arbitrary cross-section, and an example of why we can use any cross-section to perform Huntsman's calculations (except that he chooses the one that he does, because it is computationally simpler). If you were taught integration in high school, you'll remember that when taking the triple integral of dx dy dz in Cartesian 3-space (which is equivalent to the solid integral of dV, which equals V, the volume), you may perform it in any order. Furthermore, you may define a new co-ordinate system (u v w), which is offset from (x y z). If you triple-integrate du dv dw, you get the solid integral of dV—the same V (i.e. volume) as previously. Now take any two of those dimensions, like u and v, and you've got yourself a cutting plane, and a cross-section. And dV is the differential volume, which is an important quantity when calculating uniform blast effects. Since we can get it by working in the standard Cartesian co-ordinates (x y z), or in the arbitrary Cartesian co-ordinates (u v w), we conclude that it is possible to choose Huntsman's cross-section and still get a correct result.

Please don't try to combat this by arguing that basic calculus is wrong. (Unless, of course, you can prove it.)

I understand how it is computationally simpler, but still erroneously presented, and I see how he would adjust the load choosing a given height with it's related area between that of the bottom and the top (not given intitially).

However, the figure of 455 tons of high explosive is ridiculous for concrete. Perhaps less than a tenth of that for well contained high density explosives. It's been 17 years since I used those type calcs, and never originated the K, material value, just used those provided; been trying to remember what those values were.

[Christophera]

What part of "ad hominem attacks only weaken your position" don't you understand? As I see it you're dishonoring the dead but I won't use that as ammunition against you because it'd be intellectually dishonest of me to do so.

the honor depends on the truth. If there was a concrete core then what I'm doing is a servive to the dead and those that loved them. I have ZERO doubt about that truth and the evidence I have is the best and conclusive to there being NO steel core columns while providing images of concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) for those who have some experience and can recognize it.

[Christophera]

So, let's have it: what makes you so sure that a conspiracy exists? No more concrete vs. steel (since you've already established that you're only guessing at a low-resolution shot of the collapse, and an indistinct shot of the aftermath, and refuse to make simple inquiries in order to obtain the real documentation).

You totally forget that I KNOW exactly what the core was made of and how it was made. The documentary got closer to the core and tower, over the time it took to build it, than probably anyone working the project because of its scope.

How else could I use all these images logically to show that only a tubular concrete core could and did exist in the center of the Twin Towers?

http://concretecore.741.com

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You totally forget that I KNOW exactly what the core was made of and how it was made. The documentary got closer to the core and tower, over the time it took to build it, than probably anyone working the project because of its scope.

How else could I use all these images logically to show that only a concrete core could and did exist in the center of the Twin Towers?

http://concretecore.741.com

"You are stuck on stupid."
- Lieutenant General Russel Honore, US Army

[twinstead]

You totally forget that I KNOW exactly what the core was made of and how it was made. The documentary got closer to the core and tower, over the time it took to build it, than probably anyone working the project because of its scope.

How else could I use all these images logically to show that only a concrete core could and did exist in the center of the Twin Towers?

http://concretecore.741.com

You don't know crap, dude. You only think you do. Anybody with any brains who reads this long thread will come to the same conclusion.

God help our education system.

[Gravy]

You totally forget that I KNOW exactly what the core was made of and how it was made. The documentary got closer to the core and tower, over the time it took to build it, than probably anyone working the project because of its scope.
Makes perfect sense, like everything else Christophera says. A documentary that he can't prove exists was made by people he can't name who know more about the construction of the WTC than the people who built it, who he won't talk to.

Got it.

[RandFan]

Makes perfect sense, like everything else Christophera says. A documentary that he can't prove exists was made by people he can't name who know more about the construction of the WTC than the people who built it, who he won't talk to.

Got it.That's just because you lack "algebraic assimilation" my friend.

[Christophera]

"You are stuck on stupid."
- Lieutenant General Russel Honore, US Army

If this is the case, explain why I can show NO core columns and CONCRETE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) in the same image?????

[Christophera]

Makes perfect sense, like everything else Christophera says. A documentary that he can't prove exists was made by people he can't name who know more about the construction of the WTC than the people who built it, who he won't talk to.

Got it.

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

You imply that the people who built it will talk to anyone. They will not. Deceptive.

[Woody-]

If this is the case, explain why I can show NO core columns and CONCRETE in the same image?????

Actually what you show in that image is a mass of unknown composition in a cloud of dust.

I would even go as far and speculate that what is shown is the core of the WTC, but it could just as easily be a group of joined steel columns with misc pieces of drywall still attached as it could be solid concrete.

[Christophera]

You don't know crap, dude. You only think you do. Anybody with any brains who reads this long thread will come to the same conclusion.

God help our education system.

I notice you don't use images to make your point. I do.

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

This can only be the core area core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Showing the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which is outside the core. To the right is solid concrete. NOTE: The rounded corners of the huge block!!!!!!! What material erodes like that besides concrete??? Then the tightly coiled elements that protrude from near the center, what can they be but rebar3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). The documentary was very intimate with compiled details of the towers construction.

[Apollyon]

If this is the case, explain why I can show NO core columns and CONCRETE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) in the same image?????
Simple. It's because you refuse to admit some core columns are in there. Pretending they don't exist or trying to name them something else doesn't make you right. It only makes you obstinate and foolish looking.

[Gravy]

I notice you don't use images to make your point. I do.

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

This can only be the core area core wall at base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg). Showing the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) which is outside the core. To the right is solid concrete. NOTE: The rounded corners of the huge block!!!!!!! What material erodes like that besides concrete??? Then the tightly coiled elements that protrude from near the center, what can they be but rebar3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg). The documentary was very intimate with compiled details of the towers construction.
Wherever did you get those amazing photos? I've never seen them before.

[Christophera]

Actually what you show in that image is a mass of unknown composition in a cloud of dust.

I would even go as far and speculate that what is shown is the core of the WTC, but it could just as easily be a group of joined steel columns with misc pieces of drywall still attached as it could be solid concrete.

Are you proposing that drywall could survive in any fashion, the descent of thousands of tons of steel and concrete past it without having at least holes???? What about that round shape. Just like a concrete (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) piece exposed to an erosive creekbed, or the oean, rounded, very strong. Resisting uniformly.

Get real

http://concretecore.741.com

[realitybites]

If this is the case, explain why I can show NO core columns and CONCRETE (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) in the same image?????
The fact that you can claim to deduce beyond the shadow of a doubt that what is seen in that image is "concrete" containing no steel whatsoever just speaks to your monumental retardation.

The fact that anyone in this thread has entertained you for this long without resorting to insults involving your mother and a lame, albino horse is absolutely beyond my grasp as a human being and they each have earned my utmost respect.

At the risk of sounding callous, I suggest you find a bus to play with.

[Gravy]

Actually what you show in that image is a mass of unknown composition in a cloud of dust.

I would even go as far and speculate that what is shown is the core of the WTC, but it could just as easily be a group of joined steel columns with misc pieces of drywall still attached as it could be solid concrete.
As has been demonstrated here multiple times, it's a piece of the outer wall of the north tower. Christophera can't even identify what building he's talking about, so imagine how he does with details!

[Pardalis]

Christophera, pease watch carefully the pictures of the WTC1 rubble on this site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/


Do you see the steel core columns? YES or NO

[Christophera]

Wherever did you get those amazing photos? I've never seen them before.

Aren't they nice. You should find some from the same event that serve your argument, you would be much happier.

[Gravy]

Aren't they nice. You should find some from the same event that serve your argument, you would be much happier.
Just check most of my posts, in case you haven't been looking. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for your answers. What are you hiding from? Why not go and gather evidence for your core. How about tracking down that documentary? Won't that show us? Of course it will. So where is it, Christophera?

Where is it?

Where's the hallway diagram you promised? That was days ago. What's the problem? Please explain.

How many floors were built each time before the concrete core was poured? Was it 7, 17, 0r 27? Please explain how that was done.

Where's your evidence of the collapse of your 600-foot-tall remaining concrete core, a collapse that completely turned it – and all its steel rebar – into invisible dust. Please stop running and provide your evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723540&postcount=1897

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Aren't they nice. You should find some from the same event that serve your argument, you would be much happier.

How is believing that the government is plotting to kill me in a fake terrorist attack with a pre-rigged building set to blow on demand supposed to make me happier?

[Woody-]

The fact that I have an explanation for near free fall and pulverization nullifies the official lie. That explanation relies on available, raw information that any eperienced in material recognition in construction can readily identify. 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers when each pixel covers 3 feet.

[Gravy]

How is believing that the government is plotting to kill me in a fake terrorist attack with a pre-rigged building set to blow on demand supposed to make me happier?
Isn't that better than feeling like the world is ignoring you? In a sad way, Christophera seems quite comforted by his paranoid delusions.

[Gravy]

Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers when each pixel covers 3 feet.

Woody, you're new at this, so I just want to warn you that only Christophera sees the things he claims are there. He should apply for Randi's prize. He certainly has paranormal powers of perception.

[Christophera]

Christophera, pease watch carefully the pictures of the WTC1 rubble on this site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/


Do you see the steel core columns? YES or NO

NO

What you call "core columns are actually interior box columns (http://tinyurl.com/fuept)

Not core columns. Those are interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Only columns existing in the fore ground can be called "core columns" and there are none.

What you see are elevator guide rail supports, landing support or support for other equipment.

The concrete wall that did exist went across that face of the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and it was very thick concrete there at the bottom.

[Woody-]

Are you proposing that drywall could survive in any fashion, the descent of thousands of tons of steel and concrete past it without having at least holes???? What about that round shape. Just like a concretepiece exposed to an erosive creekbed, or the oean, rounded, very strong. Resisting uniformly.

Get real



Its really very simple, with the resolution of this pic you keep showing its impossible to positively identify anything. The "core" in that pic is aprox 120 pixels high, the 600 ft 60 story 3 World Financial Center is aprox 240 pixels high. At 2.5 feet per pixel no details can be known.

[Apollyon]

Aren't they nice. You should find some from the same event that serve your argument, you would be much happier.
Actually, they suck. If you could provide some real evidence to back up your claim we'd all be happier. But you can't do that so you rely on the same few crappy photos that don't determine anything.

Have you ever heard the term "preponderance of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidence)?" It goes hand-in-hand with "burden of proof." The burden to support your claim is on you. You have utterly failed to so. A preponderance of evidence has been presented to rebuff your claim as well.

That's obviously not going to sway you though. Fine. Keep believing your viewpoint. But understand that your evidence is not proof as your own personal beliefs, partisan feelings, and publicly known bias in the matter color your opinion and render you incapable of coming to any valid, unbiased conclusion.

[Gravy]

Gee, where'd the concrete core go?

Christophera, what is the recipe for Invisicrete?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723493&postcount=1891

[gumboot]

Wow Andrew, you completely missed the part about the 100% weld joining column pieces. Good job of ignorance!


Great minds have already established that the columns, be they core columns or "interior box columns", could not have been welded. Ergo, they must have been bolted or continuous.

We can also conclude that they could not have been continuous.

By process of elimination, it must be concluded that they were bolted.

-Andrew

[rwguinn]

No, you calculated the footprint of the wall and called it a cross section. When there is no designation "horizontal" it is standard that the term "cross section" refer to a vertical section.

But most importantly, not one of the steel core camp has produced on photo of the supposed steel core columns while the cnocrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is obvious to see.

Say What?
I just got me a new way to make milions! I'll rewrite all thye engineering books to incorporate this new revelation, totaly unknown and misinterpreted for hundreds of years.
Ha! All injineering is rong.I will made it rite and gather $$$$$ while in the proses! I will be haled as teh savyer of all mankind!

How old are you, whatever you are? 12? 18? Have you ever bee out from in front of your computer and video games?
HAve you ever actually used a computer for anything else than video games, webb browsing and e-mail?

[Woody-]

Woody, you're new at this, so I just want to warn you that only Christophera sees the things he claims are there. He should apply for Randi's prize. He certainly has paranormal powers of perception.


Just bored on a Friday night. I have been reading this monstrosity since it was started but just haven't had the time to join in on the fun until tonight. I didn't have anything better to do tonight so I thought I would sharpen my stick and poke it a few times and see what kind of response I would get.

[Christophera]

Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers when each pixel covers 3 feet.

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


and


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

I know why that taper is there. The documentary stated/showed that the cores rebar was welded on a slope and concrete poured at steeper inclines inside the forms. This was ordered by the engineers to eliminate the potential fracture line of opposing horizontal joints. the slopes made opposing sloped joints, better for torsion loads.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I can't read this thread anymore.

As reassuring as Christophera's posts are in showing that there will always be someone out there more messed up than I could ever get, I swear if I see 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS one more time, I'm gonna go ape-$#!+ and start huffing kittens.

[Pardalis]

NO

What you call "core columns are actually interior box columns (http://tinyurl.com/fuept)

Not core columns. Those are interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Only columns existing in the fore ground can be called "core columns" and there are none.

uh?

What you see are elevator guide rail supports, landing support or support for other equipment.

uh?

The concrete wall that did exist went across that face of the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and it was very thick concrete there at the bottom.

uh?

[Woody-]

Finally made my 15 posts, time to sharpen the bigger sticks to poke with.

There was gypsum wallboard around the stairwells, not concrete. If there was concrete then why did nearly all of the people above the impact points die. If there had been concrete it would of protected the stairwells since he claims that the concrete core didnt collapse until it was detonated.


http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm

For the people on floors above the crash site, there was another critical factor: an ordinary fire would take two or three hours to burn through the gypsum wallboard around .the stairwells --but projectiles of plane wreckage almost certainly pierced through, letting in the fire and smoke. That trapped people on the upper floors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts.


http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_fightingtolive.html

The stairwell was blocked from above — not by fire or structural steel, but by huge pieces of the light gypsum drywall, often called Sheetrock, that had enclosed the stairwell to protect it.


http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/speaking_20040212sr.html

NYC codes allowed a building designed to house 25,000 people to have only three staircases for emergency escape! It allowed gypsum board walls in stairways which at the WTC, collapsed under impact and pressure, trapping fleeing victims. NYC codes allowed many or all of a high rise building's stairwell doors to be locked, trapping fleeing victims when stairs collapsed, and preventing firefighters from gaining timely access to floors where people needed to be rescued.


http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

In the core area, the stairwells and elevator shafts were enclosed by 2 hour fire-rated walls made of gypsum wallboard on steel studs.

Most of the core columns were protected by gypsum wallboard.

Central service core
The 47 columns were made of a combination of wide flange and box sections, and were interconnected by conventional steel beams to support the core floors.


http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-02/features/featbuildings/

Although the cores of the World Trade Center towers were built of closely spaced, massive steel columns and beams, the fire stairs themselves were encased only by gypsum wallboard attached to metal studs: two 5/8-inch-thick layers of wallboard on the exterior and one on the interior. Such an assembly can withstand fire for two hours, but it offers little resistance to even a hammer blow, never mind the avalanche of debris that assaulted it on September 11. The failure of the fire stairs was almost total. All three sets of stairs in the north tower, and two of three in the south tower, were completely destroyed. Only 18 people in the south tower managed to escape from the floors above the crash zone


http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/beltonarticle.htm

Talking about the replacement the the WTC towers

"The new skyscrapers will feature a 'tube-within-a-tube' construction," he said. "The old core was a gypsum core; the new one will be made of masonry, which will exceed the fire code."

[realitybites]

NO

What you call "core columns are actually interior box columns (http://tinyurl.com/fuept)

Not core columns. Those are interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). Only columns existing in the fore ground can be called "core columns" and there are none.

What you see are elevator guide rail supports, landing support or support for other equipment.

The concrete wall that did exist went across that face of the interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and it was very thick concrete there at the bottom.
Whoa, hold on. Okay, so I just had a couple beers and decided to humor you by following that link of your "core". Ya' know... the one that indicates a "17 foot thick cast concrete core wall"???

A SEVENTEEN FOOT THICK CONCRETE WALL???!?!?!?!

Are you high? Are you suggesting each wall of the core for each tower was almost twice as thick as the length of my bedroom?

[Christophera]

Say What?
I just got me a new way to make milions! I'll rewrite all thye engineering books to incorporate this new revelation, totaly unknown and misinterpreted for hundreds of years.
Ha! All injineering is rong.I will made it rite and gather $$$$$ while in the proses! I will be haled as teh savyer of all mankind!

How old are you, whatever you are? 12? 18? Have you ever bee out from in front of your computer and video games?
HAve you ever actually used a computer for anything else than video games, webb browsing and e-mail?

HEY!

You've asserted there is an error in my logic regarding the fall sequences HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667). Define this error for us.

Be accountable.

[Christophera]

Whoa, hold on. Okay, so I just had a couple beers and decided to humor you by following that link of your "core". Ya' know... the one that indicates a "17 foot thick cast concrete core wall"???

A SEVENTEEN FOOT THICK CONCRETE WALL???!?!?!?!

Are you high? Are you suggesting each wall of the core for each tower was almost twice as thick as the length of my bedroom?

The wall is.







So the base is really thick.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2294&stc=1&d=1151119938

[Gravy]

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

[Gravy]

Christophera, why not stop running and provide this evidence?

Where's the documentary that your whole theory is based on?

Where's the hallway diagram you promised? That was days ago. What's the problem? Please explain.

How many floors were built each time before the concrete core was poured? You first insisted it was "up to 7 floors." Then you changed your mind when confronted with evidence. So was it 17, 27, 107? Please explain how that was done.

Where's your evidence of the collapse of your 600-foot-tall remaining concrete core, a collapse that completely turned it – and all its steel rebar – into invisible dust? Please stop running and provide your evidence.

How is it possible that you've been at this for years, and you didn't even know what building your core photo belonged to? With that kind of ignorance, why should anyone take you seriously

Christophera, what is the recipe for Invisicrete?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1891

[rwguinn]

HEY!

You've asserted there is an error in my logic regarding the fall sequences HERE (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667). Define this error for us.

Be accountable.:boggled:
The errors in your logic are too numerous to count. There is not enough time left remaining in my life to 1) reverse the "teaching" you have had, 2) start with basics (1+1=2), and progress to basic physics and algebra, much less advanced terms like trigonometry, calculus, and eventually engineering.
Aas my dear old dad used to say--"Your so stupid I can't even tell you anything"
I'm done here.
"Never argue with idiots. They'l drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

[Christophera]

Finally made my 15 posts, time to sharpen the bigger sticks to poke with.

There was gypsum wallboard around the stairwells, not concrete. If there was concrete then why did nearly all of the people above the impact points die.

blah blah drywall, have you any wool.


Okay, .......... so you cannot produce an image of the steel core columns you represent which come from the same sources as the images assembled for all to see (http://concretecore.741.com/), the event of 9-11, and 3000 peple have died in an demolition posing unprecedented collapse, after a national election was corrupted, evidence removed from the scene, cameras confiscated, trucks GPS'ed, WTC documents taken, illegally kept, and you cannot explain why the FEMA core (http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif) steel core columns in this image of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) are unseen.

Or why they do not show in any of the other images of 9-11 and the WTC?

In WTC 1 people were trapped and smole kept them from using the core stairs past the impact point. Some got down past the impact on WTC 2.

[Pardalis]

Okay, .......... so you cannot produce an image of the steel core columns

Steel core columns in WTC1 right here (http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121616m.jpg).

[Gravy]

Let's go, Christophera. We don't have all year. You've had years to work on this. Present your evidence. Begin.

Where's the documentary that your whole theory is based on?

Where's the hallway diagram you promised? That was days ago. What's the problem? Please explain.

How many floors were built each time before the concrete core was poured? You first insisted it was "up to 7 floors." Then you changed your mind when confronted with evidence. So was it 17, 27, 107? Please explain how that was done.

Where's your evidence of the collapse of your 600-foot-tall remaining concrete core, a collapse that completely turned it – and all its steel rebar – into invisible dust? Please stop running and provide your evidence.

How is it possible that you've been at this for years, and you didn't even know what building your core photo belonged to? With that kind of ignorance, why should anyone take you seriously

Christophera, what is the recipe for Invisicrete?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1891

[Apollyon]

Christophera.

You claim that the concrete core was 17' thick at the base and narrowed to the top to 2' thick. Right? I'm assuming the configuration of the vertical cross-section was like this: /| |\ (Since you'd need the interior of the core to be vertical walls to accomodate the elevator shafts.) That's a gradient of 30' total for two opposite sides. That's pretty significant when the towers were only 208' wide. Over 110 stories, it's a hell of a lot of space.

If that's true, then there would be less floor space available in the bottom floors of the tower than the upper floors, and there would gradually be more space available on each floor as the tower rose in height, because there's no way architects would waste that available space by merely applying vertical walls to cover the angular section of the concrete core exterior. It would be stupid to do so.

Can you prove that there was less floor space on the lower floors compared to the upper floors? If you can do that beyond a doubt, I'll believe your claim.

[Christophera]

:boggled:
The errors in your logic are too numerous to count. There is not enough time left remaining in my life to 1) reverse the "teaching" you have had, 2) start with basics (1+1=2), and progress to basic physics and algebra, much less advanced terms like trigonometry, calculus, and eventually engineering.
Aas my dear old dad used to say--"Your so stupid I can't even tell you anything"
I'm done here.
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

A rather crude, defacto admission to your failure to be reasonable.

[Woody-]

blah blah drywall, have you any wool.


Now there is a witty response, I almost died laughing.

I posted a half a dozen credible sources that show that no concrete was present and your only response is to make a "witty" comment and show that one little pic again of "something" falling in a cloud of dust.

[Gravy]

A rather crude, defacto admission to your failure to be reasonable.
Time to stop being a child and start being a man, Christophera. How is it possible that you've been at this for years, but you don't know these basics?

Where's the documentary that your whole theory is based on?

Where's the hallway diagram you promised? That was days ago. What's the problem? Please explain.

How many floors were built each time before the concrete core was poured? You first insisted it was "up to 7 floors." Then you changed your mind when confronted with evidence. So was it 17, 27, 107? Please explain how that was done.

Where's your evidence of the collapse of your 600-foot-tall remaining concrete core, a collapse that completely turned it – and all its steel rebar – into invisible dust? Please stop running and provide your evidence.

How is it possible that you've been at this for years, and you didn't even know what building your core photo belonged to? With that kind of ignorance, why should anyone take you seriously?

Christophera, what is the recipe for Invisicrete?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1891

[Christophera]

Christophera.

You claim that the concrete core was 17' thick at the base and narrowed to the top to 2' thick. Right? I'm assuming the configuration of the vertical cross-section was like this: /| |\ (Since you'd need the interior of the core to be vertical walls to accomodate the elevator shafts.) That's a gradient of 30' total. That's pretty significant when the towers were only 208' wide. Over 110 stories, it's a hell of a lot of space.

If that's true, then there would be less floor space available in the bottom floors of the tower than the upper floors, and there would gradually be more space available on each floor as the tower rose in height, because there's no way architects would waste that available space by merely applying vertical walls to cover the angular section of the concrete core exterior. It would be stupid to do so.

Can you prove that there was less floor space on the lower floors compared to the upper floors? If you can do that beyond a doubt, I'll believe your claim.

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)

[Apollyon]

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)
Uh K. And that proves what? It doesn't show walls that were inclined or canted.

I asked you whether or not the floor space on the bottom differed in any considerable manner from the upper floors. I don't believe you've provided an answer by linking a picture.

I also believe I have just destroyed your entire theory.

[Christophera]

Now there is a witty response, I almost died laughing.

I posted a half a dozen credible sources that show that no concrete was present and your only response is to make a "witty" comment and show that one little pic again of "something" falling in a cloud of dust.

Many people dealt with tons of drywall that day in the stairwells and the elevators. Did you find the one where the guy dug through the drywall and found concrete?

There is another logical aspect that cannot be denied, the steel core columns are never seen. This, .......... is simply not possible.

Notice, you do not spend your time here promoting steel core columns and the images do not show them; you say"there was NO concrete core", what you are actually saying is there was no core.

Woody's new "air core" theory

[Gravy]

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)
You've been at this for years and you don't even know what building you're talking about.

Do you feel good about this behavior?

[Apollyon]

Christophera. You got some splainin' to do.

Please prove the upper floors had significantly more square footage of floor space available than the lower floors, which would have to be true per your claim.

btw, anyone care to do the calculations on the floor space wasted by having a concrete core of Christophera's design. I'd tackle it, but after 5 beers and a double martini, I'm not in a calculation state of mind right now.

[Gravy]

btw, anyone care to do the calculations on the floor space wasted by having a concrete core of Christophera's design. I'd tackle it, but after 5 beers and a double martini, I'm not in a calculation state of mind right now.
No, thanks. All the construction photos clearly show the core as designed and built. No concrete.

[Woody-]

Many people dealt with tons of drywall that day in the stairwells and the elevators. Did you find the one where the guy dug through the drywall and found concrete?

Nope, I never saw that one. Got a link or is it another figment of your imagination.


There is another logical aspect that cannot be denied, the steel core columns are never seen. This, .......... is simply not possible.

I must of been hallucinating when I saw all of the construction pics that people have posted in this thread showing the core columns.


Notice, you do not spend your time here promoting steel core columns and the images do not show them; you say"there was NO concrete core", what you are actually saying is there was no core.

Not my job to "promote" steel columns, I dont have time for that anyway, its too much fun "busting" the concrete myth.


Woody's new "air core" theory

My "air core" has just about the same evidence to support it as your concrete core does.

[Christophera]

Great minds have already established that the columns, be they core columns or "interior box columns", could not have been welded. Ergo, they must have been bolted or continuous.

We can also conclude that they could not have been continuous.

By process of elimination, it must be concluded that they were bolted.

-Andrew


Interior Box columns with butt weld. (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg)

Note the discolored area to the right of the floor beam intersection. A butt weld has been ground flat. 100% welds work very well for making continous long pieces of steel. They do flex a great deal so must have concrete cores (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) to brace them laterally.

You can also see them here in the image where WTC 1 is silhouetted to south (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg).

From the right side on the top moving left to the center.

The floor space. Then the interior box column, then the open space between the interior box column and the concrete core. Then the core wall, then a hallway at the center. That interior box column witht he butt weld linked above is from WTC 1 near the top somewhere. That is why there is 4 floor beams coming off of it.

[Christophera]

I must of been hallucinating when I saw all of the construction pics that people have posted in this thread showing the core columns.

Not "core columns" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). They ring the outside of the concrete core. Note the steel inside the core is smaller.

[Ducky]

Okay, .......... so you cannot produce an image of the steel core columns you represent which come from the same sources as the images assembled for all to see (http://concretecore.741.com/), the event of 9-11, and 3000 peple have died in an demolition posing unprecedented collapse, ...<snip>...


Actually alot of pictures showing the steel columns were presented. You just ignore them.

Also, what prescedent do you have to a building of the magnitude of the twin towers and their demolition or collapse? What other buildings in the world of the same size and magnitude of the twin towers have collapsed or been demolished?

You base your entire argument on suppositions and assumtions of facts not in evidence.

Let's skip your needling and nitpicking of small details and go right to the big one:

Why do you believe what you do about the twin towers?


Were you ever at the twin towers? were you in the area on 9/11?

Let's boil this down to one last question:

What would it take for you to change your views? Think real hard about that before you answer.

[Gravy]

Not "core columns" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). They ring the outside of the concrete core.
You can't even identify the correct tower, and you presume to lecture people about core construction?

[Apollyon]

Christophera. I'm still waiting for your explanation of the floor space difference that would have to be true per your design claim. Each higher floor would incrementally have more space available. Can you prove that to be true?

[Christophera]

Christophera. You got some splainin' to do.

Please prove the upper floors had significantly more square footage of floor space available than the lower floors, which would have to be true per your claim.

btw, anyone care to do the calculations on the floor space wasted by having a concrete core of Christophera's design. I'd tackle it, but after 5 beers and a double martini, I'm not in a calculation state of mind right now.

WTC 1 is silhouetted to south (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg)

The space between the interior box column and the core face is visible.

From the right side on the top moving left to the center.

The floor space. Then the interior box column, then the open space between the interior box column and the concrete core. Then the core wall, then a hallway at the center.

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)

[Pardalis]

There is another logical aspect that cannot be denied, the steel core columns are never seen. This, .......... is simply not possible.

There (http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121616m.jpg) you go.

[Woody-]

Interior Box columns with butt weld. (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg)

Note the discolored area to the right of the floor beam intersection. A butt weld has been ground flat.


This is getting fun, if you click on the Hi-res image of that pic at the OSHA website you can clearly see that it is not a weld joint at all, it is a continuous column. The "ground flat" area is simply a discolored band around the column.

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5-hires.jpg

[Woody-]

Not "core columns" interior box columns (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg). They ring the outside of the concrete core. Note the steel inside the core is smaller.


Good pic of the interior columns also, just because you dont point one of your little red arrow at them doesnt mean they dont exist.

[Apollyon]

WTC 1 is silhouetted to south (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg)

The space between the interior box column and the core face is visible.

From the right side on the top moving left to the center.

The floor space. Then the interior box column, then the open space between the interior box column and the concrete core. Then the core wall, then a hallway at the center.

I believe this to be the south tower north side (narrowest side) Lobby (http://tinyurl.com/htl77)
Your pictures prove nothing whatsoever, so stop wasting my time with that crap. I want proof that floor space was incrementally greater on each floor as would have to be true if your concrete core design is correct.

[Christophera]

You can't even identify the correct tower, and you presume to lecture people about core construction?

Hard to be sure unless you get the right set of images and maps in front of you. With the WTC 2 North Lobby (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_19aug2000_lobby_s.jpg) and core base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) the only clues I could use would be shadows. Somebody that new the area could identify the buildings outside.

[Gravy]

Christophera, when you don't even have the skills to identify which tower you're talknig about, it's time to start over from the beginning. Please do. At least until you can tell one tower from the other.

[Christophera]

Your pictures prove nothing whatsoever, so stop wasting my time with that crap. I want proof that floor space was incrementally greater on each floor as would have to be true if your concrete core design is correct.

Sorry, that is as good as it gets. You have to use your own brain, this ain't TV where the thinking is done for you.