Found Any Realistic Explanations For Free Fall, Anywhere, Ever?

[Christophera]

This is a profoundly important issue. If there is no explanation that is feasible out there, what we saw was impossible, it didn't happen. (making many power mongers delighted)

So, ................. if you have ever heard or seen a feasible explanation for how the trade center towers could be made to fall at rates comparable? to free fall in a pulverized mass, post it here. Otherwise the unsavory situation described below can lurk as a potential reality for some time, unti its gets so harsh our ability to act is gone.

Absurdly, if the foregoing is true, that what we saw was impossible, then the 'blue screen" hologram people have a point. Oh, and the folks that believe it is all in the mind and the towers never existed from the beginning have a chance at explaining it like it all exists in a nueral matrix making us think it is real.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. The only way that I can come up with

is to blow up the buildings from the inside out with some sort of weapon or weapons.

Of course there are 100's of reason why the people involved would never want to even hint at such a thing. The liability issues are huge if it turns out that someone actually got weapons into the buildings, past all their security.

However, getting the weapons in would have been relatively easy. With over 200 elevators in each tower, that gives you a lot of access to do whatever you want inside the core. Including driving trucks preloaded straight into their freight elevators and then shutting a few elevators down for 'repairs'.

Whatever happened, something sent out a LOT OF ENERGY all at once. The ENERGY had to come from somewhere.

[Jazz2006]

23. Nothing really turns on this but....

where did you get the "over 200 elevators in each tower" bit?

Just curious, because I thought that there were 99 elevators in each tower, not "over 200".

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. Otis Elevator - but it could be for both buildings?

Otis will engineer, manufacture, install and service 208 elevators and 49 escalators, 24 of which will serve the new Manhattan Terminal of the Port Authority Trans-Hudson commuter train system (PATH) that serves New York and New Jersey commuters.

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html


I think I may have misread this statement. Yes there are 208 elevators but it seems that's for both buildings.

Also, most of the elevators would go part way. So for each shaft there may have been 2 or 3 different elevators? I do know that each building had a freight elevator that went all the way from top to bottom because I've been in that one.

[Jazz2006]

30. Yes, I think that sounds about right.

I'm not sure if the final plans included 104 in each tower, but it sounds about right since a myriad of sources indicates 99 passenger elevators in each tower, and there could easily be 5 freight elevators in addition to that. In any event, it's certainly close enough for rock & roll :)

And yes, you're right that most of the elevators go stop on certain floors, with a few that go all the way from bottom to top. I remember having to take an elevator from ground level to a "sky lobby" on the 78th floor and then take a separate elevator from there to get to the 101st floor.

I know that there was an express elevator that went from the bottom to Windows of the World in the north tower because I've been in that one, and an express one that went from the bottom to the observatory in the south tower, because I've been in that one.

Anyway, like I said in a prior post, nothing turns on it ~ I just wanted to see if we could clarify the figures and ~ ta dah ~ we have.

Cheers, Jazz.

[HornBuckler]

2. Depends on your definition of 'Realistic'

I have found a lot of realistic explanations for the near free-fall and they all seem to be about controlled demolition and or explosives. :)

Now, if you want a realistic alternate theory - I haven't heard/seen a good one.

[Christophera]

5. What Do You Mean, "Realistic" Explanations? That's Exactly What Is Sought

If you know of one site that has a realistic site, try and find the link. I'm interested.

[Sinti]

3. Where are all the debunkers? Dudes, get on this one! We need help! ;)

I'd love to see a better explanation, to relieve my troubled mind. Of course, you'll probably get it wasn't "exact free-fall"... still, the silence is deafening up in here.

[ediedidcare]

4. I can't explain but..

the working theory is that to explain the fall times lower floors must have been atomized to allow for upper floors to collapse at freefall.
In other words the path was cleared of any resistance ( thermate cutter charges?) and everything dropped down. One cannot explain
the lack of resistance.

[LARED]

6. This is really simple math

Free fall is 9.2 seconds. Precise collapse times are not possible but most good estimates place them around 14 to 18 seconds.

At 14 seconds, you are 50% slower than free-fall. At 18 seconds you are nearly twice the time of free-fall.

When something is 50 to 100 percent different from the base line it is not comparable.

[jschurchin]

7. Lared, may I ask your opinion on something?

When 78 and above collapsed on 77 it displaced enough energy to pulverize the concrete into dust along with snapping all of the supports holding 77 then continued it's downward travel to 76, 75, 74 etc. Each time releasing more kinetic energy while gaining some(weight of the next floor). How long do YOU believe it would have taken the tower to collapse. Just a ballpark.

I have not done the calculations (who has THAT kinda time) but it just seems 14-18 seconds is too Conservative.

[LARED]

15. Re:

Let me address what I believe is a common misconception. The dust. The dust was not largely pulverized concrete. It was a mixture of concrete, gypsum, glass, fiberglass, ceiling tiles, paper, etc. By CT'er constantly referring to the pulverized dust it gives the impression that the energy (PE) was only converted to work energy in up breaking concrete.

Once a long time ago in this forum I made a crude calculation that solved for a collapse time based on the percentage of potential energy that was converted to work energy via kinetic energy (ie slowing down and breaking up the buildings. This was a basic application of the conservation of energy principle. What I found was that if you assume 30% of the PE was converted to work energy the collapse time is a bit over 12 secs. The higher the percentage of energy converted the slower the fall time. So if the true fall time is say 16 seconds then I would guess at least 50% of the PE was converted to work and the balance only to KE.

This is not a definitive result, mind you, but it merely points out that even converting relatively high level of PE to work energy will not substantially slow the collapse in terms of absolute time to fall compared to free fall.

[jschurchin]

16. Thank You.

[Sinti]

8. Free fall is 9.2 seconds in a vacuum with no resistance of any kind

IOW if you dropped an object off of the top of Tower 1, with no air resistance, it would fall in approx. 9.2 seconds.

The 9/11 Commission says Tower 2 fell in 10 seconds -- of course, given the fact that the building was shorter free fall time, in a vacuum with no resistance at all, is approximately 8-9 seconds. The key point here is "No Resistance". There would have been a lot of resistance. "Free fall" and "virtual free fall" are two slightly different species. Given the resistance of each floor, not the support columns and discounting air resistance, the minimum times I've seen modeled are between 30 and 90 seconds. Models are not always accurate, I suppose.

How do you explain the fall itself? Not just the rapidity, I mean, do you believe the pancake theory? The Congressional report doesn't explain, and says it cannot explain, precisely how the buildings fell. Shouldn't the building collapse progression have stopped at some point, given that the lower floors were not particularly damaged by fire or airplane impact, had been supporting the weight of the upper floors prior to impact, and technically the weight of the floors was reduced by the amount of pulverized debris that was blown out horizontally from the structure? Not trying to argue, really just curious on your thoughts here.

[mrgerbik]

9. I'm a person with concerns...

I'm new here, and I've read and viewed lots of articles and videos about the events of 9/11. I've come to the conclusion that the pancake, global-collapse or progressive-collapse theory - whatever you might call it - is utter and total nonsense. There is no way that the resistance of those trusses, huge support columns, beams, concrete and perimeter steel (which was built with normal high rise redundancy) were overcome by gravitational energy alone. WTC wasn't a "hollow" building as claimed by many people, there were many massive support columns inside.
Even taking this out of the equation, and going with the official theory, why would WTC2 fall first? The plane that struck that building incurred much less damage (fire and structural), because the plane struck the corner, blowing most of the jet fuel outside the building. Whereas WTC1 took a full frontal hit, depositing most of the fuel inside.

This link may be helpful as to show what happens when a building is demolished through explosions:

(Select "Reading Grain warehouse" - the 4th from left in the top row)
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
*Also of notable interest are the demolitions of the Southwark Towers, located 3rd from left on the bottom row) - notice the squibs of dust. The same squibs seen in the WTC collapses.

Note the top half of the building crashing onto the lower half. Instead of the rest of the building collapsing under the weight of the entire upper half, the lower half remains standing. This is to be expected, as all high rise buildings built by code have more then enough redundancy to support that kind of weight... the WTC buildings were no different.

It may not be much, but its a thought.

[Sinti]

10. Why would WTC2 fall first?

Vagaries of fortune, I suppose. There is no logical reason that I've ever heard put forward. There's really no attempt to explain a lot of things. Most people don't read reports, so they don't have to be specific or even realistic in many cases.

[Jazz2006]

14. The logical reason that I've heard is

that it fell first because it was hit lower and at an unusual angle, which caused greater instability more quickly.

I also recall reading that by 9:30 a.m., an engineer from the Department of Buildings reported to fire and police officials that the structural damage to the towers was immense and that the towers were in danger of imminent collapse. I don't know the engineer's name but if memory serves, he told that to a group of emergency response officials, and that the fire dept rep (Peruggia) sent an aide named Zarillo to report to the senior fire commander (Ganci) about the threat of imminent collapse, but no sooner than Zarillo delivered the message, the south tower started to fall.

[Sinti]

17. Hit lower actually makes sense n/t

[Christophera]

18. Towers Were On Timers For Anonymity-Wrong Tower Hit First

But the pilots knew each others targets so they were hit at the approximate elevations. Recall flight 175 's radical dive at the last moment. Also, the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions. The north tower was hit on the north side and the top should fell to the north as load bearing wall was damaged, The top fell to the south and the body to the north. South tower was hit on the south side and the top fell west while the body fell east.


But free fall is the issue here.

[Twist_U_Up]

11. Welcome to DU Truth Seeker, Welcome Aboard but..............

beware of shady characters, dont let them get to you. Their main mission is to get you tomb stoned. Just keep a level head hit them with facts and don't respond to personal innuendo. This usually ends their drivel.
It wont take long to be able to point them out.

[LARED]

13. Thanks for the heads up

I'll be sure to be careful

[Jazz2006]

12. That's a great link, thanks.

(not only because it visually demonstrates rather clearly how different controlled demolitions look from what happened at the WTC, but also because I love watching those guys do their work).

And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[mrgerbik]

19. Thanks, but I am still concerned...

Thanks for the welcome, its nice to find forums where people act like human beings, quick to bring people "into the fold", so to speak.

I may as well put forth my two cents in regards to your reply (about the demolition videos) that "visually demonstrates rather clearly how different controlled demolitions look from what happened at the WTC".

Now, if you consider for a moment that the buildings were brought down in demolitions by inside or esoteric group(s), wouldn't you deduce that their main goal and plan of attack for that day would that they would try NOT to create the appearance that a conventional demolition occurred? An unconventional demolition would only help to bolster their position afterwords, as "conspiracy theorists" would have to try and explain that much harder as to the demise of the buildings.

Now, back to the question as to why the second building fell first: The official theory is that the trusses connecting the floors to the perimeter failed under "immense" heat and the floors gave way, initiating "progressive collapse". This theory only holds water when you consider that all the trusses had to be heated and fail at roughly the same time for a collapse of this nature to occur. I postulate that if the corner of WTC2 was hit in the way that it was, that only those trusses in the direct heat of that corner would be affected (Unless there is proof that the entire floor was superheated). Thus the top of the building, above the damage, would tilt in the direction of the impact, and most likely topple over in that direction (don't forget that in the official theory, gravity pulled down 100+ floors through some 400,000t of reinforced steel and concrete - so it has an immense role). This remains, to me, a reasonable expectation.

Is this where the zipper effect is supposed to come in?

[Jazz2006]

21. If I understand you correctly,

it seems that you are suggesting that the towers were taken down in controlled demolitions designed specifically NOT to look like controlled demolitions so that conspiracy theorists later would have a harder time trying to explain why they DON'T look like controlled demolitions. Is that what you mean?

Regarding the question about why the tower hit second fell first, I posted above at post #14 the rational explanation I've heard about that.

[mrgerbik]

25. maybe...

I'm not specific ly saying that events were made to look like unconventional demolitions for the sole purpose of making the truth seekers life after the event that much more embroiled in debate, thus more difficult. I was simply pointing out that to blow the buildings with conventional demolition means would obviously lend more credence to its use. THe use of unconventional means, has a dual purpose.

[Jazz2006]

26. ????

I'm sorry, but I can't quite fathom your train of thought.

Are you suggesting that the towers were taken down with controlled demolitions designed to look like something other than controlled demolitions? Or are you suggesting that they were taken down with controlled demolitions designed to look like controlled demolitions? Or are you suggesting that they were not taken down with controlled demolitions at all?


(edit: typo)

[mirandapriestly]

39. I think they did try to make it look "natural"

by demolishing it in thirds starting with the top third. They seem to have set off charges in a line similar to where the plane hit, so it looked like a result of the plane. Then the other two sections followed. Kind of 3 demolitions in one, maybe that's why it wasn't "exactly" freefall.
I wonder if there wasn't something else planned to explain the lower part of te towers collapsing, something that would also explain the cars they exploded and wtc 7. Some think Flight 93 was intended for wtc7, and there was another plane rumored.

[Christophera]

46. Sequence And Direction Of Top Fall Indicates Planned Impact Areas

I've spent a good deal of time on this and actually began when I first joind DU. After some time here, gathering the input of other posters, I determined that the top of the north tower went south and the top of the south tower went west. Both onto WTC 3, a loser of a hotel. eventually I was able to determine that timers were the reason that the wrong tower fell first within the ruse.

In a cartoon of planes hitting towers the top of the tower ends up falling toward the directon of the side impact and the base in the direction of the planes travel. This is because the unconscious knowledge we have says that things fall in the directions that loose support. The cartoon is consistent with unconscious knowledge so is more completely accepted in its symbolism.

From the sequence of fall and the directions the components fell, the north tower was to be hit on the south side 2nd and the south tower to be hit on the west face first. Examine the shot from the east of the upper part of WTC 2 beginning to tilt that way, it mimicks a non present impact of huge force on the opposite side, the west side, up higher and breaking off the tower, a caricature.

Fight 11 hit the wrong tower. All that the pilots had to know to make the ruse look real, a standard atttack contingent training aspect, was to know each others target elevations so that they could impact at the aproximate elevations where detonations were planned in the mimickery even if they ended up hitting the wrong tower. The presence of fires, lies and fear completes the deception.

[Make7]

31. Welcome to DU!

mrgerbik wrote:

This link may be helpful as to show what happens when a building is demolished through explosions:

(Select "Reading Grain warehouse" - the 4th from left in the top row)
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
*Also of notable interest are the demolitions of the Southwark Towers, located 3rd from left on the bottom row) - notice the squibs of dust. The same squibs seen in the WTC collapses.

Note the top half of the building crashing onto the lower half. Instead of the rest of the building collapsing under the weight of the entire upper half, the lower half remains standing. This is to be expected, as all high rise buildings built by code have more then enough redundancy to support that kind of weight... the WTC buildings were no different.

I thought people might be interested in more of the background story regarding the Reading Grain warehouse. According to this account (also found on www.implosionworld.com): "...only the top half of the head house would be removed by the blast."

It's an interesting read.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

37. Here is demolition vid, similar to wtc "collapse"

http://www.timreynolds.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6710
(click on "watch the video" below the first photograph)
Somewhere there is a timer on this video on this controlled demolition, but I can't find that one - the Landmark Towers. It's funny because a "would be" debunker posted it to show that wtc wasn't a demolition, but it is very similar to wtc in many ways, there are quite a few web sites using it as more indication that wtc was a c'trld demolition. The timer showed that although it was only 30 stories tall, it took LONGER to fall than the wtc, so it is silly to quibble over the few seconds longer than freefall that the wtc took.

found the timed video posted below.

[mirandapriestly]

38. Here is the timed video

http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html

It's hard to tell how long it takes exactly, cuz when the kid pushes the button, you can't see anything start to happen for a few seconds, but it takes a MINIMUM of 13 seconds, I think longer, for this to fall and it is one third the size of the WTC.
(Note other similarities)

[Jazz2006]

51. The CD of the Landmark is vastly different than the WTC collapses.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&pl=true

It's quite obvious if you watch the video.

1) Listen to the sound. Clear and obvious detonated charges going off. The towers were under the scrutiny of numerous television and amateur video cameras at the time of their collapses and none of them sound like this.
2) Note the huge bursts of explosives erupting at the base of the Landmark as the first charges and then again after the series of timed charges are detonated, followed by another final series of charges before the building starts to actually fall. Nothing like that at the WTC towers.
3) Note the physical differences between the implosion of the Landmark and the collapse of the WTC towers.
4) Although some people insist on repeating the mantra that the towers "fell into their own footprints," that simply is not true. The reality is that the WTC towers rained debris over several blocks, damaging and destroying many other buildings.

[Make7]

32. RE: approximately

Posted by Sinti:

Free fall is 9.2 seconds in a vacuum with no resistance of any kind

IOW if you dropped an object off of the top of Tower 1, with no air resistance, it would fall in approx. 9.2 seconds.

The 9/11 Commission says Tower 2 fell in 10 seconds -- of course, given the fact that the building was shorter free fall time, in a vacuum with no resistance at all, is approximately 8-9 seconds.

Using the following equation:

  t = (2h/g)^½

It is possible to calculate the free-fall times instead of using an approximation.

The free-fall time for the North Tower would have been 9.22 seconds and the free-fall time for the South Tower would have been 9.20 seconds.

The collapse time in the 911 Commission report is not correct. Video evidence clearly contradicts the time given.

- Make7

[Sinti]

33. What is the correct time? n/t

[Make7]

34. Longer than 10 seconds. ( n/t )

[Sinti]

35. Insufficient answer.

It's the equivalent to I don't know. I will snoop around and see if I can find it on my own, thanks.

[Christophera]

36. Debris Settlement Time Not A Part Of Fall Time-Be Wary Of Attempts To Nail

it down. As soon as the debris touches anything it starts slowing down, meaning the pile was; for a few seconds or longer, when debris begins settling; 100 feet thick perhaps. It starts settling when everthing begins resisting descent a little and actually settles when it all bends a little. This can vary depending on the positions of the elements at rest or mostly at rest and those moving.

[Sinti]

49. The 9/11 Commission must have taken their time from the seismic data

from Columbia University.

Data for the South Tower is 10 seconds North Tower is 8 seconds. They also have the seismic data from the jet impacts, and a couple of interesting anomalies.

Link:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

Video, BTW, unless you have an untouched version can be slowed down or sped up. It's kind of salt to taste, isn't it?

[Make7]

54. The seismic data is obviously not an accurate measure of the collapse time

From the link (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm) you provided:

Information Based on Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Event                     origin time (EDT)          Magnitude        Duration
                       (hours:minutes:seconds)  (equivalent seismic)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact 1 at North Tower       08:46:26±1                0.9           12 seconds

Impact 2 at South Tower       09:02:54±2                0.7            6 seconds

Collapse 1, South Tower       09:59:04±1                2.1           10 seconds

Collapse 2, North Tower       10:28:31±1                2.3            8 seconds

Collapse 3, Building 7        17:20:33±1                0.6           18 seconds

The actual collapse times of the North Tower and WTC7, based on video evidence, are far different than the times suggested by the seismic data.

Based on a previous response of yours, I thought you were going to try to find out the correct collapse time for the South Tower. Posting more information that contradicts the collapse times shown in video footage does not seem to be an effective way for you to determine the correct collapse time. To each his own....

My hope was that you could give us the exact collapse time so we could all finally agree on at least that bit of information. But as it is, the answer given by you so far appears to be insufficient - by your standards. "It's the equivalent to I don't know."

- Make7

[Sinti]

70. Tower 1, by video, is 11 seconds (give or take a few milliseconds)

That's pretty close to free-fall. I'll need to get a video together, ensure that it's not tampered with video, add a timer, and so on. I cannot find where this has been done on the 'net, and unfortunately I have to work for a living, which takes a lot of my time :).

The tower falls at about 10 stories per second. Part of the top appears to explode, if you will, and doesn't quite "fall" like you would expect. It falls down, rather than off to the side. That center explosion could account for maybe 2 seconds (I'm being extremely generous here) that we can add back into final fall time, via video. So let's say 13 seconds, just for convenience sake for now.

Let me ask you, though, how do you explain it even if it took 20 seconds? 110 stories at .25 seconds each, to fall, is still over 27 seconds. The lower floors in particular would have given a good bit of resistance, they were not weakened by the crash and were not on fire. Do you have an answer for this?

[Make7]

90. Do you mean Tower One (the North Tower) or the first to fall (the South) ?

Sinti wrote:

I'll need to get a video together, ensure that it's not tampered with video, add a timer, and so on. I cannot find where this has been done on the 'net...

If you can spare 38 seconds, check out the part of Loose Change 2nd Edition found here starting at 35 minutes and 30 seconds.

Actually, if you can spare the time, you might want to watch the whole video.

One odd thing that I, and many other people, have noticed about falling objects is that they tend to accelerate as they fall. I have no idea why you believe it should have taken 0.25 seconds for each story to fall, but there have been models done that would indicate that the towers should have fallen in much less than 27 seconds even without explosives.

I shall await your video analysis for the correct time. I would like to point out that there are people (who seem to have spent far more time and effort researching this topic than you) that have concluded that each tower took longer than 11 seconds to collapse.

- Make7

[Sinti]

91. I don't Loose Change - too many things that defy basic logic in it

Are you trying to suggest that the towers all that structural steel would have given almost no resistance whatsoever? What resistance is taken into account in those models? The whole building was not on fire, the lower floors should have given plenty of resistance even if the steel in the upper floors was completely melted? Am I to believe that the structural steel snapped like a twig under the broken concrete? Even if it did snap like a twig, it would have added to the fall time.

FWIW - I think the makers of Loose Change have an agenda, and I wouldn't put it past someone to speed up the collapse of the Towers to meet that agenda. There are a lot of fun things you can do with video that would go unnoticed.

[Make7]

105. convincing

 

Posted by Sinti:

Are you trying to suggest that the towers all that structural steel would have given almost no resistance whatsoever? What resistance is taken into account in those models? The whole building was not on fire, the lower floors should have given plenty of resistance even if the steel in the upper floors was completely melted? Am I to believe that the structural steel snapped like a twig under the broken concrete? Even if it did snap like a twig, it would have added to the fall time.

I thought that saying that the towers fell slower than free-fall necessarily implies that there was resistance. That fact that you believe it was not enough resistance is somewhat less than convincing.

You didn't even bother to calculate the free fall time for the South Tower (or merely look up the result of someone who did) before posting your inaccurate estimate. You also repeated an incorrect collapse time given in a report (that one can presume you have little confidence in) without even verifying if it was correct or not. This topic has been under discussion for years, by now I think it would be possible to gather some facts before posting on the matter.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. However, believing in something and that something actually being true are not the same thing.

- Make7

[Sinti]

109. What on earth are you on about?

Is this supposed to be some kind of an affront to me personally? There are a lot of things on the Internet. Government stories and CT, both of which seem to have a fair share of tall tales in them. Technically, if the government weren't hiding something, they wouldn't have so many inaccuracies, and contradictory statements between agencies and such. In your last post you suggested I watch Loose Change, much of which is as easily refuted as the existence of Santa Claus. I saw the first one and couldn't get through it.

Free fall is not at all required for a controlled demolition, BTW, most controlled demolitions use gravity to help them break down the structures. Therefore, they generally take a little longer than free fall in a vacuum would.

The whole collapse, by time-coded video, took 12:20. That's .01109 seconds per floor to break bolts, welded gussets, spandrels and concrete, and continue its descent?

Time-coded video here:
http://s74.photobucket.com/albums/i273/sintisoul/?action=view¤t=southtowercollapse.flv


In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.


Succeeding panels are bolted together by means of high-strength bolts installed through handholes in the box columns, which are accessible from inside the building. Gusset plates and high-strength bolts connect adjacent spandrels, and these connections are also made from within the building.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm

3 seconds over free fall. Technically the South Tower fell faster than a great many controlled demolitions. Therefore, I'm not certain that's quite what happened.

You can believe what you want to believe... I'm asking a question. I think I have that right, if you don't mind.

[Make7]

125. Salt to taste.

Sinti wrote:

Video, BTW, unless you have an untouched version can be slowed down or sped up. It's kind of salt to taste, isn't it?

Sinti wrote:

FWIW - I think the makers of Loose Change have an agenda, and I wouldn't put it past someone to speed up the collapse of the Towers to meet that agenda. There are a lot of fun things you can do with video that would go unnoticed.

Too salty for my taste.

Sinti wrote:

The 9/11 Commission says Tower 2 fell in 10 seconds -- of course, given the fact that the building was shorter free fall time, in a vacuum with no resistance at all, is approximately 8-9 seconds.

Sinti wrote:

Tower 1, by video, is 11 seconds (give or take a few milliseconds)

Sinti wrote:

The whole collapse, by time-coded video, took 12:20. That's .01109 seconds per floor to break bolts, welded gussets, spandrels and concrete, and continue its descent?

And then at the end of your flash video you say it it was less than 12 ½ seconds. That's four different times so far. The general trend appears to be that it is increasing - perhaps I should just wait a few more posts for it to go up again.

- Make7


BTW - you might want to double check your math. And your concept regarding the per floor time - remember when I mentioned acceleration before? For your most recent accurate time, the rate of acceleration of the collapse was 47.15% slower than free-fall.

[Christophera]

95. Unfortunately Collapse Calculations Do Not Account For Material Going Up

Every particle seen going up, (collapses don't do this)



must still fall, adding to the time to fall. Meaning that the over all height of the tower must be increased in calculations proportionate to the period of time of the fall where material is seen going up by the distance going up.

With that factor added it will be seen that the towers fell faster than free fall and that figure is the closest to correct for the demoltion.

[Jazz2006]

103. How inconvenient, then, that it all appears to be falling down

and not moving upward.

Damned shame, that.

Look, anyone can post a still photo from a video and assert anything that suits their purpose, but the sad reality is that the building in your photo collapsed while numerous television and private video cameras captured it.

Literally millions of people saw it happen.

If you really want to continue to claim that the debris went upward istead of downward, despite the fact that you have presented nothing that supports your assertion, well, rock on. But don't expect rational people to agree with you.

And you still haven't responded to my queries about the source of your assertion that there were 17 foot thick concrete walls in the towers. Where were these 17 foot thick concrete walls? I could not make it out from your posts.

[Christophera]

106. If Anyone Can, Why Didn't You Post Image Of All Materials Going Down?

Even a still is fine because it is easy to tell if materials are going up or down. If you must, post a video of materials only going down.

Posted by Jazz2006

How inconvenient, then, that it all appears to be falling down and not moving upward.

From the above, it is clear that you are having difficulty with logic and ascertaining position/direction.

Posted by Jazz2006

Look, anyone can post a still photo from a video and assert anything that suits their purpose, but the sad reality is that the building in your photo collapsed while numerous television and private video cameras captured it.

Why you did not do something you assert anyone could do and I maintain YOU SHOULD DO, in this situation, if you are going to say anyone could?????

Posted by Jazz2006

And you still haven't responded to my queries about the source of your assertion that there were 17 foot thick concrete walls in the towers. Where were these 17 foot thick concrete walls? I could not make it out from your posts.

The base of the concrete core of WTC 1 was 15 foot thick on the alls of the long axis and 17 foot thick on the short axis. The top was 2 feet thick with a taper the full height. WTC 2 was similar but thinner walls at the base and it wasn't tapered. It was stepped in gradually reducing cell wall thicknesses.

The taper of WTC 1 (right) can just be seen. The light vertical strip next to the core is the space between the interior box columns and the tapered concrete core face. Not WTC 2appears with parallel walls. It was after perhaps the 50th floor.

[Jazz2006]

111. No, actually,

The stills you've posted do not show whether particulate is moving upward or downward. They simply show still frames which are open to interpretation.

Which was, er, my point.

I'm not the one with logic problems here.

Videos are better, certainly, for trying to ascertain the direction of flow of dust clouds, particulate, and other materials. No need for me to post them here as they've all been posted before, but they tend to show exactly what I would expect to see in such a calamitous collapse with such massive forces being brought to bear. I.e. dust clouds moving upward, larger debris moving outward and downward, and lighter debris or particulate moving slightly upward before moving downward.

As for that 17 foot thick concrete wall figure, could you please provide a source for that measurement? Much obliged.

[Christophera]

116. Yes, Actually. I Insist, Post Your Video Link. Let Us Examine Them & End

this controversy and use what we know to go to the next step.

[Sinti]

117. I've got a video if you want it, no comments on it though n/t

[Jazz2006]

118. Christopher.... So...

About that source for your 17 foot thick concrete wall ???

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

(edit to add Christopher's name to the subject line ~ yeah, yeah, I know.)

[Christophera]

120. Here Is Image, If You Don't Know What You Are Seeing, Your Problem

My source is the 1990 documentary of the construction and I'm quite certain that is not available.



Logic will have to suffice. If this is a concrete core (and no photos exist of steel core columns in the core) then the enginering standards would dictate that the base must be very thick if the height is 1300 feet.

Meanwhile, I do not "trade" information when it comes to determining how 3,000 brother and siste Americans were killed, I give it away.

Meaning, ............. if you think that no material went upwards as the towers went down and say you have a link to the video to prove it, POST IT!!!

[Jazz2006]

130. Sigh.

It's not that I "don't know what I'm seeing". It's that the photo you keep posting over and over again does not support your assertion re: the 17 foot thick concrete wall at the base of the core.

And now you seem to be saying that you have no available support for your assertion that there was, in fact, a 17 foot thick concrete wall at the base of the WTC towers, and that you are backtracking from your prior assertion that the photos you've posted here repeatedly DO show a concrete core to "IF this is a concrete core..."

And please note that in a prior post, I said that "I would expect to see in such a calamitous collapse with such massive forces being brought to bear <...> dust clouds moving upward, larger debris moving outward and downward, and lighter debris or particulate moving slightly upward before moving downward."

No explosives required.

E.g.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

Dust and light particulate may move upward. Smoke, of course, always moves upward. Everything else moves outward and downward.

[Christophera]

131. Let Us Discus Evidence And What It Is/Is not. Your Video Does Not Show

what you said it showed about the tops of the tower explosions, or everything going down. Not even close, they show wall faces. My link shows what I say it will because the stills do not lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=85665&mesg_id=87152

Let us discuss this evidence and what it shows.



Posted by Jazz2006

It's not that I "don't know what I'm seeing". It's that the photo you keep posting over and over again does not support your assertion re: the 17 foot thick concrete wall at the base of the core.

What I've posted again IS the 17 foot thck concrete core. I've notated on it what I know was there and what i see there. Time for you to talk about what you think it is we are looking at.

[Jazz2006]

132. The fact that

you have "notated" a 17 foot thick concrete wall without anything to back up the assertion that any such thing ever existed means very little, Christopher.

It is certainly not up to me to give you an alternate theory of what YOUR assertions and YOUR photos show. It is up to you to show that they actually depict what you claim they depict. So far, you have not done so.

WRT the videos, like I said before, I think that the two videos I posted show "what I would expect to see in such a calamitous collapse with such massive forces being brought to bear. I.e. dust clouds moving upward, larger debris moving outward and downward, and lighter debris or particulate moving slightly upward before moving downward."

No explosives required.

Contrary to your assertion that "they show wall faces" - I think that they speak for themselves and that anyone looking at them will see that they show much more than that. You must not have actually watched them if you think they show only the "wall faces" since it is readily apparent that that is not the case at all.

And contrary to your assertion that " link shows what say it will because the stills do not lie" ~ that is complete and utter nonsense. Stills from video are always open to interpretation. In fact, even raw videos are open to interpretation, but stills taken from video are even less reliable (and I think you even agreed with that point of view in a prior post).

So much depends on angle, lighting, speed, vantage point, and all of the things that may NOT be captured on any given video.

In other words, in my view, the videos I posted support the point I was making about the direction of dust, smoke and particulate vs. the direction of other material and debris. Whether you agree with my interpretation or not.

We can disagree about our respective interpretations of both stills and raw video, sure. But there really is no sustainable argument that the stills you posted which were pulled from videos are definitive or that they are not entirely subject to interpretation. There is not even any sustainable argument that the uncut videos themselves are not subject to interpretation.

[Christophera]

134. It Appears You Deny The Obvious And Distort The Rest - NO CREDIBILITY

Your lack of integrity to reason has cost you your credibility.



jazz wrote:

you have "notated" a 17 foot thick concrete wall without anything to back up the assertion that any such thing ever existed means very little, Christopher.

It is certainly not up to me to give you an alternate theory of what YOUR assertions and YOUR photos show. It is up to you to show that they actually depict what you claim they depict. So far, you have not done so.

Excuse me, I notated a photo SHOWING the base of the concrete wall. The photo backs itself up IF you have the integrity to apply an understanding. The process of elimination proves what it is, but one has to have the integrity to engae the process. You do not have it.

Two things are quite obvious in the phot0 I provide.

1.) The multiple steel core columns FEMA state existed in the core are totally unseen. They would be piercing the stairwell if they existed..

2.) The large rectangular grey mass to the right of the interior box column has rounded corners. Only concrete can have that appearance under conditions. Rigid coils of steel protrude from the top, high tensile rebar that has undergone exposure to extreme pressures will react exactly like this.

As far as the videos,

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_ne.mov

They show materials going up just as do the stills.



If you had the integrity to post your video link I would repost it and we would be able to see they simply show tower wall faces and are too close to the tower to view the plumes of particulate travelling upwards off the top.

[Jazz2006]

135. Sigh.

It takes a special kind of chutzpah for you to go around accusing others of a lack of integrity or a lack of credibility when you simply post the same photos repeatedly while ignoring or distorting what others have said in response.

As I have said previously, you assert that the top photo shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall that forms the base of a concrete core. I don't see it. You have provided no support for your assertion that a 17 foot thick concrete wall ever existed, and you now say that it's there because you "know" that it was there. The fact that you make up a "fact" out of thin air and write it on a photograph does not make it true, sorry. It may be your belief - but that doesn't make it true. And the fact that you start from stating your belief as a fact and then using a strange form of circular "reasoning" (and I use the word "reasoning" loosely in this case) in an attempt to lend some kind of authentication to your belief is not convincing.

As I have also said previously, stills and even videos are open to interpretation for many reasons, and I've listed a few of those reasons previously. You and I happen to disagree on our interpretations. That does not make my interpretation any less valid than yours.

Contrary to your assertion, I have posted video links. You even commented on them. You think they show something different than what I think they show. See - another example of different interpretations.

But why you are now insinuating that I have not posted them and why you are using that falsehood to springboard to cast aspersions on my integrity or credibility (for the third time in a single post) is just bizarre.

In the circumstances, I see little point in continuing to discuss this with you.

[Christophera]

137. No Evidence, No Discussion On Evidence, NO CREDIBILITY, blah, blah blah

Posted by Jazz2006

It takes a special kind of chutzpah for you to go around accusing others of a lack of integrity or a lack of credibility when you simply post the same photos repeatedly while ignoring or distorting what others have said in response.

You are not relating to the evidence. That is what is in question.

Posted by Jazz2006

As I have said previously, you assert that the top photo shows a 17 foot thick concrete wall that forms the base of a concrete core. I don't see it. You have provided no support for your assertion that a 17 foot thick concrete wall ever existed, and you now say that it's there because you "know" that it was there. The fact that you make up a "fact" out of thin air and write it on a photograph does not make it true, sorry. It may be your belief - but that doesn't make it true. And the fact that you start from stating your belief as a fact and then using a strange form of circular "reasoning" (and I use the word "reasoning" loosely in this case) in an attempt to lend some kind of authentication to your belief is not convincing.

No thin air, this evidence is serious substance and you are not talking about it. You are talking about the fact that I present it, not even an argument against it. If you cannot talk about evidence, you have no buisness trying to dissmiss it.

As I have also said previously, stills and even videos are open to interpretation for many reasons, and I've listed a few of those reasons previously. You and I happen to disagree on our interpretations. That does not make my interpretation any less valid than yours.

Contrary to your assertion, I have posted video links. You even commented on them. You think they show something different than what I think they show. See - another example of different interpretations.

Your interpretations are bunk, inaccurate, misleading and erroneous. Yes, I label it and do so accurately. You entire argument is such, here and eleswhere.

The links you said showed no material going up do not even show the right part of the building from an appropriate perspective. The show mostly walls too close to see what is happening on the top of the building,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC

The links I've provided are from further and show materials traveling upward.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_ne.mov

Just like the still image.



Meaning that the towers fell faster that free fall because there was so much material going up that an distance upward must be added to the tower height because so much material actually fell from a slightly higher position.

[Jazz2006]

138. Nonsense.

See my previous posts.

And when you're quoting me in your posts, you should actually make that clear instead of making it look like it's something you're writing.

I direct you to this part of your post:

(As I have also said previously, stills and even videos are open to interpretation for many reasons, and I've listed a few of those reasons previously. You and I happen to disagree on our interpretations. That does not make my interpretation any less valid than yours.

Contrary to your assertion, I have posted video links. You even commented on them. You think they show something different than what I think they show. See - another example of different interpretations.)

Those two preceding paragraghs were my words, not yours, but your post does not notate them as such.

You say:

"Your interpretations are bunk, inaccurate, misleading and erroneous. Yes, I label it and do so accurately. You entire argument is such, here and eleswhere."

I say - once again as you seem to keep missing this fundamental point - that photos are open to all manner of interpretations, not just the only one that you seem to think exists.

But since you appear to be either too blind or too stubborn to comprehend that simple fact - and it IS a simple fact, you know - I'll put this in language that you might comprehend. I think that your interpretations are "bunk, inaccurate, misleading and erroneous. Yes, I label it and I do so accurately." Your entire argument, here and elsewhere, is unsupported, misguided, misinformed and so repetitively boring that it bears no further consideration.

[Christophera]

139. 3,000 Dead Doesn't Matter But Quoting Improperly Does - Sickening

You are a total waste of time. No evidence, No reason, No Integrity. You waste so much time it is burdensome to respond completely to your baseless crap. But it must be done, your sick denial/obfuscation cannot be allowed to go undefined.

Material went upward which automatically increases the rate of fall in calculations.

[Jazz2006]

140. You're clearly delusional if you think that "3000 dead doesn't matter"

and clearly beyond delusional if you are purporting to ascribe those views to me.

"sick denial/obfuscation"?

I can only surmise that you're looking in a mirror since nothing I've said here could lead to that phrase applying to me.

As for evidence, reason, and integrity ~ yes, you really should try to find some of the first, learn some of the second, and develop some of the third. All three are lacking in your posts.

It is not I who posts "baseless crap". Your inability to comprehend simple and basic facts, simple and basic logic, or simple and basic concepts is not my problem.

As I said earlier ~ in the circumstances, I see no reason to continue to give your posts any further consideration.

Have fun posting those photos without substance ad nauseum to anyone who attempts to engage in discussion with you in future.

[Christophera]

142. Clearly Manipulating By Presenting That 3000 Dead Doesn't Matter To Me

When doing that, you show the loss of their lives really does not matter to you. (see link at bottom for my integrity on this matter)


And terming your posts as "discussion" cannot be reasonable because I have posted evidence over and over,



and you will not discuss the structural aspects evident in the image. It is not fun posting these images when you refuse to discuss what is seen. They will only cease to be posted when someone discusses them reasonably. You have not.

You still are not discussing, you are still denying without reason and f which is sick denial and obfuscation. If this was not true you would have answered my inquiry about the missing steel core columns. You did not answer.

There is massive evidence for the concrete core for all of us here.

http://concretecore.741.com

I have reasonably shown that you have no integrity to this discussion or a search for truth.

My integrity extends to making a web site using raw evidence that actually explains free fall and total pulverzation.

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

All you have done is said "NO" over and over.

What have you shown, reasonably or done with integrity that supports the denial?

[DoYouEverWonder]

123. Then please explain the large black plume of smoke

going UP from the middle of the building.

[Jazz2006]

129. Are you serious?

Smoke rises.

Try a simple experiment such as lighting a bonfire. Note the direction of the smoke. It will go upward and perhaps partially sideways, depending on the wind.

[mr.alleycat]

20. IMO the only explanation that is feasible is.....

Somehow resistance was removed as the towers fell.
I've seen videos of the towers falling, and have seen squid jets from the sides of the buildings several floors below the main fall.
Did you read the hack job PM did on the towers?
There's a piece in it about seismograph evidence.
They said the CT crowd used a seven hour graph to show an explosion at the beginning of the fall, saying it was deceptive.
They used a 45 second graph to show their point, which is also deceptive.
At face value it did seem to be the case, but if you expanded the graph to a seven minute window you see events prior to the fall.
At least with the north tower, but it was hit higher up and was reinforced after 93.

Oh and there was video that showed what looks like an explosion took place in the basement.
Soon after that came to light they were circulating the terrorists may have planted a car bomb in the basement.
I guess just in case the story grew legs, but I've not heard anything since so they managed to redirect the sheoples focus.
They didn't have to explain who planted the bombs.
I imagine there were a lot of (whew That was a close one)

[Christophera]

22. Absolutely, Resistence Removed, But How? How So Quick? Bombs Not

effective, too localized. Too many required and they do to little unless they are somehow put inside of the object to be exploded. Blow some holes in the concrete core wall at most. Maybe damage an interior box colums a little. Hence drilling of holes prior to setting charges. Ever try to drill a hole in concrete?

[mr.alleycat]

24. We don't know

What kinds of explosives the gooberment has developed.
We also know they had (updated) some of the fire retardant on the steel supports.
We'll never know since the perps got rid of the evidence.
The thing to keep in mind is each tower was built as two independent buildings. The outer skin, and the center columns could stand by themselves.

[Jazz2006]

27. Um....

"each tower was built as two independent buildings. The outer skin, and the center columns could stand by themselves"

Really? Do tell.

[Christophera]

28. Center Columns? There Were None. Towers Had Cast Concrete Tube For Core

There is a prominant lie concerning the core design, FEMA tries to tell us this was the core.



But in the lower image the core of WTC 2 is shown half fallen and not one 1300 foot steel column is seen. This is because there were no steel columns inside the core.



There were heavy steel columns outside, ringing the core. They were called, "Interior box columns". The FEMA lie says there were 47 of them and they were inside the core. There were 47 but they were outside the core and comprised the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. Here is an image of the spire which is formed by an interior box column near the corner of the core but outside of it, If there were 47 steel columns inside the core they would be seen to the right of the spire, they are not. The interior box column is 14 inches thick.



And here is another image taken about 1 second after the above after the spire has fallen that should show core columns but does not. The vertical that elements that are seen are way too small for core columns because they were supposed to be the same size as the interior box columns and have extensive diagonal bracing. What we see is 3 inch rebar on 4 foot center. At the distance one would not be seen but many would, and that is what we see. The slope to the top of the bar was a required joint for the series of butt welds that eliminated the weak horizontal joint around the building. The concrete was poured on the same slope between consecutive 40 pours.

[sgsmith]

41. Where's that documentary you keep talking about?

Still haven't been able to come up with your documentary have you?

And I've never seen where you commented on the PBS documentary that I've linked to several times.

Oh well, keep on living in your concrete world.

[Christophera]

47. On 9-11 I Knew Documentary Was Gone-But I Remember And Use Memories

to understand images. For example. This is an image of the interior box columns, the lower core wall and what is left of a stair well. Note, no columns to the right of the stairwell, none protruding from the stairwell.



I did link to that documentary but you may not have seen my comment. If I remember correctly it down load in three segments and has lots of aerial "ballet", things dangling from cranes w/music. I think I commented that the docuemntary I saw actually mentioned that promotional piece in the beginning and explained that it, the documentary I watched, was a final detailed look at the tower construction.

Anyway I use what I learned to understand the images we do have. Here is 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers, maybe 100 of them. Note the slope of the tops of the bar. Engineers specified that the butt weld of rebar was to NOT be on a level line across the building as well as concrete joints in the successive 40 foot pours,

[Jazz2006]

50. 17 foot thick concrete wall?

That first photo has writing on it indicates a "17 foot thick (max) concrete core wall at tower base".

I can't imagine that there were 17 foot thick concrete walls - it just doesn't sound feasible or reasonable somehow. Do you happen to have a source for that figure?

[Jazz2006]

59. I Meant To Say 17 Foot Thick Concrete Wall?

That first photo has writing on it indicates a "17 foot thick (max) concrete core wall at tower base".

I can't imagine that there were 17 foot thick concrete walls - it just doesn't sound feasible or reasonable somehow. Do you happen to have a source for that figure?

[sabbat hunter]

78. i have asked the same

i have asked the same question multiple times, and all i get are the same tired pictures over and over. if the video ever existed in any place but christopera's mind then it is still out there somewhere. people must have a copy that they taped at the time it originally aired, teachers looking to show it to their classes, etc.

[rman]

40. Cut the beams of the steel core with thermite

Stop pretending your concrete core theory is commonly accepted.

[Christophera]

42. When No Logic For A Steel Core Is Forthcoming-It Must Be Concrete

If there is no common, logical and comprehensive opposition to the information then it is basically accepted and that would be "commonly" on this and other forums.

No one can prove that there were 47, 1300 foot columns in the cores but this is a photo of the core of WTC and it looks like concrete.



Some of the 47 steel columns would show in the core area if they existed. They do not show so therefore it is logical to accept that the core was concrete because concrete WILL fracture and fall instantly with a small amount of high explosive centralized inside of it. No competetn explanation of WHY they do not show has ever been offered.

By accepting that the above image shows concrete, the incongruity of "steel core columns" in the image and the commonly known aspect of free fall are both explained.

I'll ask you to notice that since I posted the "Why is it so importatnt that the towers did NOT have concrete cores" that all the opposition to the concrete core fact has disappeared. I believe it is because all those opposing the core are of an organized group of disinformants and they decided that their opposition was actually drawing attention to the concrete core, which they do not want. It stopped on this board and another, http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=12 at the same time.

[Sinti]

43. BBC article says steel and concrete core

They are praising the construction saying that it held up for so long precisely because of the steel reinforced with concrete core design.

Steel-core design

The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.

Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Doesn't anybody have the plans for WTC 1&2? They should be easy to get, I would think.

[Christophera]

44. BBC Partly Right-Catch Liars When Stories Don't Match

The BBC has it partly right. It was steel reinforced concrete. It just wasn't configured as they show it.



We know the elevators and stairs were inside the core. There is no room for them in the BBC tower above. Liars are caught when their stories don't match. Here is what FEMA shows how the core was configured.



The below has absolutely NO resemblence to the above and it IS the core of WTC 2.



How can this disparity exist in 2 of the worlds tallest buildings, public buildings?????????? Does something seem wrong? What could design configuration have to do with free fall??????? conclusion: The BBC thinks it knows but doesn't and FEMA is lying. Cheny was appointed chief after w was selected.

The mayor of NY took the WTC documents, including the plans and will not return them. Judges will not make them.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

A picture and pattern could form from all of this.

[Sinti]

45. Liars are caught when their stories don't match - policemen will tell you

this is how folks get caught.

"The mayor of NY took the WTC documents, including the plans and will not return them. Judges will not make them."

If so, there is a cover-up of something, where there is a cover-up there is wrongdoing. These are very famous buildings, the architect and his work were very touted back in the day. There should be many copies of the design... weird stuff, huh. There may be a way to verify the exact design without the plans held in NY. It's interesting. I will try to find this info.

Apparently the Towers design was based on the IBM Tower in Seattle and had the same engineers - this info initially from an architecture magazine called "Great Buildings," supplemented with an article from the PA Post-Gazette.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

The column-free interior made it an early model of open-space planning, and it was the forerunner of all tall buildings with concrete cores and load-bearing, external frames, including New York's World Trade Center. The Twin Towers and the IBM Building had the same Seattle-based engineers, John Skilling and Leslie Robertson.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/623134.stm

[mirandapriestly]

48. It is really weird; I live in Seattle

and tried to find information on the IBM building AND the world trade center. NOTHING before 2001, except a few books with some sort of superficial information. I looked through the architecture library at the UW database and even there I saw nothing of interest. I figure that some old journals or magazines might have something, so I am going to try that next. As for blueprints, I don't see why these are not available. Are they usually available? I have read that there was a lawsuit in New York for them to release the blueprints in the eighties, for some reason,I don't know what happened. it's really hard to find that information, too. So something is being hidden. Pre 2001 information has been beyond censored .

[Jazz2006]

52. Sinti, there are photos from during construction of the WTC towers ...

posted on prior threads in this forum that show the components of the core, etc.

I don't recall where they are exactly, but just remember that when I first came here, I went through some 20 pages of threads in this forum and saw them here.

Just thought I'd mention it in case you're interested. Some of the old threads have lots of cool and interesting stuff in them.

[Christophera]

56. One Piece Of The Concrete Core Left - Rest Disintegrated

Here is the piece that is left.



But below we see that the rest of it was disintegrated.


Green arrows indicate interior box columns that ringed the core. Yellow = elevator and equipment support structures

There is an explanation. But one has to be prepared to believe that it was built to demolish. What we saw,



looks more like concrete blowing up but it is so efficient that we do not recognize it.

Here is the core of WTC 2.



And it certainly is not comprised of any structural steel whatsoever in the core. Tubular, steel reinforced cast concrete looks like that under those conditions.

[Harper_is_Bush]

66. How do you know what concrete looks like blowing up?

Your comment is moot, since the rapid descent of the building was "blowing up" the structure beneath it.

[Christophera]

94. I've Worked Doing Above Ground Blasting-Concrete Is Similar To Conglomerat

es. Which I've blasted extensively.

And your comment is erroneously deceptive. Your interpretation of what is happening,



that some huge weight is crushing the tower explosively is nonsense and completely unsupported by any picture that does not show the top of the tower, or some solid part of it doing what you suggest. If you are going to suggest such things you must post an image.

This one doesn't show the top crushing the bottom it shows the top falling to the side.



This one shows explosions blowing through the area you state has the top of the tower falling and crushing the lower.



Produce some images that show the Top crushing the bottom if you are going to assert such nonsense.

[Sinti]

85. Thanks, Jazz, great idea

I didn't find them on these boards, but I got a couple. Don't know quite what to make of them yet, though. It's a lot of steel.

[Jazz2006]

86. You're welcome... and glad you found them from wherever

you found them :)

I don't know what to make of them either and I claim no expertise in construction whatsoever.
But at least historical photographs can provide some kind of reference point when attempting to understand things that were later not visible (i.e. after contruction was complete and the "guts" of the construction were enclosed with walls, barriers, etc.)

Just another piece of the puzzle and a bit of mind candy, for what it's worth :)

[Make7]

89. Those pictures have been posted on DU before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69364&mesg_id=69568

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69364&mesg_id=69364

(Scroll down those posts a bit to see the pictures. Be sure to check out the web address for the one in sgsmith's post that is the same as the second one that you posted.)

- Make7

[Christophera]

97. But Is Data Worth Having It's Own Site? No, Raw Evidence Does Not Support

multiple steel core columns inside the core area.

You images from helicopters show interior box columns, not "core columns". The steel seen inside the core is much smaller.

The raw evidence of the concrete core is extensive with many references from engineering and architectural sources and it has its own web page.

http://concretecore.741.com

[Sinti]

99. This is a VERY informative site. Lots of refs.

Sites that were not built for the purpose of proving anything. Very nice. You should try to send everyone to it. I haven't read it all, but I read some and did scope out several of the links.

Yes, it appears there was a concrete core. There is a WEALTH of evidence to that end. Thank you. You can't see this in the pictures.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

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


The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23). Also, the exterior of each tower had closely spaced columns made of aluminum and steel that provide the most support for the tower. To buffer extreme winds that come from the Hudson River and the occasional tropical storm, a shock-absorbing system was developed where the ends of each floor beam acts like an automobile's shock (Yamasaki 116).

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

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility.

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

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

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

[Christophera]

100. Much Respect For Your Appraisal, Raw Evidence Doesn't Lie

When I saw the images of the shear wall behind the interior box columns that formed the spire, I knew others could see it as well. The single piece left of the core is really impressive. It saved about 20 people.



The single most important piece of evidence about 9-11 is the concrete core of the towers. Why?


Well, ...................................... where did it go, how did it go?

[rman]

53. When No Logic For A Concrete Core Is Forthcoming-It Must Be Steel

[Christophera]

55. No Steel Core Columns Are Seen-Illogical To Say Core Had Steel Columns

But it is logical to say it had a concrete core because this looks like concrete not like steel columns.



Because concrete can be instantly fractured to fall freely. Steel requires loading of explosives that would create an event that would appear completely different than this.



(less concrete and much more horizontal, fast flying steel.)

[Sweet Pea]

57. if I see these pictures one more time.....

I'm gonna scream.

:o

[LARED]

58. I'll join you

Is it possible to have a group scream over the internet?

[Jazz2006]

60. Count me in.

:D

[sabbat hunter]

79. lets all scream

lets all scream together. *Aaaaaaaaaaargh*

[Christophera]

88. That Will Be Good For You - Group Therapy

At least when I hear the noise I'll know the truth is beginning to get through.

Here, .................... for the awakening.



And the one piece of concrete that didn't detonate.

[Jazz2006]

104. Sigh. I'll ask again...

since you haven't answered the question the first few times it was asked....

where were the 17 ft thick cast concrete core walls that your oh so often repeated photos allude to?

[Christophera]

107. I've Just Answered For 2nd Time-Here, W/images Showing Upward Particulate

The obfuscation of disinformationalists or those in denial actually makes it hard to find responses to questions, or anything for that matter.

Here is my most recent answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=85665&mesg_id=86929

[Jazz2006]

112. Well, I only asked three times... over several days...

Funny how you could find all of those other posts in the other thread to respond to with the same photos over and over and over and over again, but not the three in which I asked you this very short, specific question on this single thread that you started yourself.

Oh well, I suppose the obfuscation of conspiracy theorists in denial must have got in the way.

But I'm glad you finally answered.

Can you please provide a source for that 17 foot thick figure?

Much obliged.

[Christophera]

122. Now That You Found My Answer, How About That Link Showing Materials

only going downwards, Or, in other words, a video with no material going up. There are supposed to be lots available, remember?

My source for the core thicknesses:

Long axis walls 15 feet

Short axis 17 feet.

Top rim = 2 feet

Here is a piece of the short axis wall, stairs were in each end of the rectangular core.

[Christophera]

124. Materials Blowing UP-Video link

If you won't come up with one, I will.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg

when the playhead is about 1/2 inch from the right, a large blast of brownish material blows upward.

Here is another. About 1/2 way through a large piece of struture and material is thrown up and out.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_ne.mov

[Christophera]

127. JAZZ Hey! You Haven't Come Up With Your Video Link, So I Did, Guess What?

You can see materials going up like I said. However it is not as pronounced as I wuld have expected except for about 15-20 frame chunks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=85665&mesg_id=87070

The structure below is blown up before the upper detonation has anything to push against and everything expands horizontally for the most part. You will see at the times I describe in the links I provide, material travelling upwards.

[Jazz2006]

133. See above.

(#129, #130, #132)

[Christophera]

62. Show Pictures Of Steel Core Columns At Elevation Then-If You Can

Get ready to scream.

Concrete is the most common building material in the world. Steel flexes too much in the proportions of the towers for the core to be steel. This image can only be concrete.



concrete had rebar in the center of it. Detonations fractured the concrete but left the rebar standing.



This image taken just before the above provides scale. The interior box column, not inside the core, comprises the spire and they are 14 inches thick.



The government told another BIG lie and it hides how free fall happened.

[Harper_is_Bush]

65. "Show Pictures Of Steel Core Columns At Elevation" - what do you mean?

I can't make head nor tails out of what you're saying.

[Christophera]

92. I You Have To Ask, You Should Be Reading Not Posting

You poor confused thing.

Show pictures of steel core columns at elevations means; Show pictures of what you believe existed as the core, but maybe 400 feet off the ground. Or 600 feet, 300, just not ground level because there was lots of support structure inside the core at the base to hold up landings for freight elevators and mechanical equipment.

Or ................. just read enough until the terminology doesn't confuse you anymore.

[mirandapriestly]

101. Great advice! lol...nt

[Jazz2006]

71. Christophera - What Is Wrong With You?

Why Do You Keep Posting The Same Pictures Over And Over Again When They Have Nothing To Do With The Post You're Supposedly Responding To?

And can you please answer the question I asked twice above about the "17 Foot Thick Concrete Walls" ?????

Preferably without posting the same photos that show nothing of the sort, please.

And, as an aside, why do you Capitalize Every Word In Your Post Subject Line?

[Christophera]

93. Concrete Can Fracture And Fall Instantly-Still Think It Has Nothing To Do

what I post?

It is the concrete core of WTC 2.



No, can't answer without showing you the concrerte core.

The core was 15 foot thick at the base of the walls of the long axis and 17 foot thick on the short axis.



Haven't you ever noticed that every word is capilalized in titles historically?

[rman]

76. it seems you are one of few who see a concrete core

in those images.

[Christophera]

96. Ever Seen A Realistic Explanation For Free Fall?-First Step, Identify

structural elements.



Where are the steel core columns? If none are seen that makes sense because multiple steel core columns flex too much in a tower with the proportions of the TWC towers. It also makes sense because the explosions required to cut them would be huge if done in free space unconstrained. We didn't see that, we saw very well contained explosions.

Here is a picture of the WTC 1 shear wall.



This zoom is notated to show the elements.



Here is the outside face with the interior box columns silhouetted against the shearwall.

[Christophera]

126. rman, Do You See A Multiple Steel Core Column Core Here?

anywhere

[Harper_is_Bush]

61. Is this topic satire?

When things fall, they "free fall".

If this is a serious topic, can I get the central question translated please?

[Christophera]

63. Not About The Meaning Of Free Fall, About Explaining HOW Towers Did It

Meaning you don't need a translation.

can you provide a link to a site with a credible, feasable explanation for free fall.

[Harper_is_Bush]

64. What the hell are you talking about? "free fall" is a dictionary term

there's no need to find "credible" or otherwise explanations for free fall.

It's defined, we all understand it.

What are you saying? I get a feeling that you're talking around what you believe.

[mirandapriestly]

67. He is talking about an explanation for how the towers

fell at free fall. How could this have happened if it were not a controlled demolition where supports that would inhibit the time it took to fall were being systematically removed.

[Debunking911]

68. The buildings didn't fall at free fall.

There was resistance.



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/freefall.htm

[mirandapriestly]

73. Quibbling over seconds

Who is to say there would not still be some resistance in a controlled demolition? In fact the Landmark Tower which I linked to above took longer to fall from a controlled demolition than the WTC and it is half the height. Proximity to free fall is the point and less time than a controlled demolition.

[Christophera]

74. Close Enough For Government Work - Towers Fell WAY Too Fast

Jam that nonsense where the sun don't shine.

We got 3,000 Americans dead and we still don't know how.


Why are you here?

[Harper_is_Bush]

69. Who can prove that the rate of fall was equal to that of free fall?

Nobody, that's who.

Pure nonsense.

[Jazz2006]

72. Nobody. Quite right...

Because the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds, no matter how often the lie is repeated.

[Christophera]

75. Technically, Overall Descent Was Faster Than Free fall - Proof Here

Rates of fall are calculated by dividing the distance travelled downward by the time taken to fall. In this picture we have a considerable amount of material traveling UPWARDS.



Technically, all distance upward must be added upward from the over all height because that material has yet to fall and it will fall from a higher position.

CONCLUSION:
The towers fell much faster than free fall because the upward travel of material before falling continued all the way to the ground.

Why are you here?

[Grateful for Hope]

77. Good question!

and, very observant.

[Christophera]

87. Yes. "Why Are They Here". Another Poster Pointed Out "Faster Than Free f

all about a year ago. It is a valid perception that what goes up, still must come down which means it will fall further increasing the fall rate.

[LARED]

80. According to your theory the WTC's

are still falling. Here's why. Some dust particles created in the collapse are so small they get "stuck" in the atmosphere. So they must still be floating around.

BTW, do you REALLY believe you should include the dust created in the collapse in the fall time calculations?

[Christophera]

82. Upward Arcs Of Particualte To Heavy For Dust-Dust Doesn't Gain Velocity

Your attempt to obfuscate through confusion are sickening in the light of mass murder.

The plumes of particulate are large particles and pieces. The difference from dust in the image is obvious. The dust had no velocity over distance from the explosion because it has no mass.

[LARED]

83. I'm sure you are convinced you have an understanding

of the dynamincs, nevertheless, let me assure you, you don't. I will diligently try to avoid responding to your posts in the future as I am starting to feel guilty.

[Christophera]

108. Understanding Of Dynamics Must Follow LOGIC, So You'll Not Respond

Particulates that travel from a point of rest UPWARD, when they fall, will fall from that apogee, the arc we see here.



That apogee or top of arc is at a higher elevation than it was before travelling upwards and so will fall further when it does fall. Clearly, the over all height of fall must be adjusted upward to account for this.

Logically I say that if the tower is blowing UP about 300 feet, all the way DOWN, then 300 feet is added to the overall height.



Is your logic better or have you convienently preloaded your post to make an excuse for not supporting you assertion that I do not understand the dynamics?

[LARED]

110. Why would any of that matter if you are trying to determine how

fast the building collapsed. The notion that the dust plumes should be included in a collapse time makes no sense.

[Christophera]

113. No Logic, No Collapse, Not Dust-Particulate, Heavy With Velocity

We cannot know exactly how fast it fell. The relative rate of fall is approximately free fall, we know this.

It matters because so much material went up before it went down, it actually fell from a higher position. We can now change the fall rate to slightly faster than free fall.

[LARED]

114. Can you explain what you are talking about

in some detail. Dust went up and out, the steel went down. The dust has nothing to do with the speed of collapse.

Again, most videos indicate the building collapsed in something around 14 to 18 seconds. At least 50% slower than freefall. 50% or better is not close.

[Christophera]

115. You Insist On Distorting Heavy Particulate By Calling It "dust"

The gray plume is gravel and concrete.

[Jazz2006]

119. Nah, you insist on distorting dust by calling it heavy particulate.

See how easy it is to assert something on the basis of a photo without any actual evidence or proof of the assertion, as you have?

You say it's "gravel and concrete". Others say it's "dust".

The latter are probably more accurate since it seems rather apparent that anything, including gravel and concrete, can be turned into "dust" under pressure. I don't think there is anything contentious about this.

It also seems apparent that lighter weight bits will form a plume of "dust" and heavier bits will plummet downward. Just as the videos illlustrate. I don't think there is anything contentious about this, either.

The plumes are most likely dust that used to be all manner of solid objects comprised of - wait for it - gravel and concrete... among other substances that would naturally exist in the buildings.

Personally, I don't think anyone can authoritatively assert that the "grey plumes" are composed of one or the other (i.e. dust or concrete & gravel) because the photos are entirely inconclusive as to the composition of the plume matter.

But the theory that light weight particles (i.e. dust) might flow slightly upward briefly as as result of massive pressures expelling them from a collapsing building, and the theory that heavier particles and debris would flow outward and downward as a result of the massive pressures exerted upon them, are not mutually exclusive.

[Christophera]

121. Dust Will Not Gain Velocity, You Manipulate, Deny And Obfuscate Truth

Physics says dust will not travel in line after the pressure jet propelling it escapes to free space.



We see dust, the white billows, but we also see gray material that has obvious velocity that extends hundreds of feet from the tower.


Time for you to post your video link that shows all materials going down only.

[Jazz2006]

128. What part of...

"the theory that light weight particles (i.e. dust) might flow slightly upward briefly as as result of massive pressures expelling them from a collapsing building, and the theory that heavier particles and debris would flow outward and downward as a result of the massive pressures exerted upon them, are not mutually exclusive" is it that you don't understand?

[Christophera]

136. Distorton "Massive Pressure" | Velocity, Not "flow"> Never Said Exclusive

What part of...
Posted by Jazz2006

"the theory that light weight particles (i.e. dust) might flow slightly upward briefly as as result of massive pressures expelling them from a collapsing building, and the theory that heavier particles and debris would flow outward and downward as a result of the massive pressures exerted upon them, are not mutually exclusive" is it that you don't understand?

Billowing clouds of dust are subject to being discribed as "flow" but not plumes having obvious velocity and linear travel.

upward briefly

dust flow???? Methinks you have no clue. You can'r decipher particulate elements of explosions.

The first has a dark grey blunt plume shoot upwards near the end. In the second one we see a panel of the perimeter wall travel upwards and out, towards the camera. Huge piece of steel travelling upwards at least 60 feet, flying out ward at high speed.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_ne.mov

How could you infer that I have said that particulate (not dust) at velocity going upward is mutually exclusive with debris flow outward. Oh, ........... you are just trying to confuse the reader and obfuscate logic, I understand.

[Jazz2006]

141. See prior posts...

on this thread in response to your ridiculous assertion that the stills you've posted mean only what you personally think they mean.

And see prior posts on this thread with video links.

And see post #140.

Have fun posting the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again ad nauseum to someone else who makes the mistake of trying to engage in legitimate discussion with you, as it has become glaringly apparent that to make such an attempt is an exercise in folly.

[Christophera]

143. There's No Evidence Or Logic There Either. Free Fall Cannot Be Denied

And material boles upwards making it nescessary to add distance up from the top of the tower in order to have a comprehensive fall rate.



http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_ne.mov

[Harper_is_Bush]

81. "upward travel of material before falling continued..."

"...all the way to the ground"???

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

There were a variety of materials falling at different rates, obviously. The fact that some smoke/dust/whatever remained in the air or was even projected upwards by forced air is irrelevent to this latest claim that the building fell faster than freefall.

Free fall, shmeefall. Post all the pictures you want, nothing here remotely supports the idea that a controlled demolition took place.

[Christophera]

84. Typical That Redundant Evidence Is Rejected

So it is understandable that your ability to use english is also impaired.

All materials fall at the same rate basically. Air resistence is only differing factor. Technically the particulate which goes upwards, must still fall.

To imply that "forced air" is adequate to propell heavy particualte hundreds of feet upward is not credible. Mostly because there is nothing on top, and no seal with which to make pressure. Al that does not billow (as in dust) has velocity and dust will not gain velocity adequate to travel as far as we see.



Your effort to manipulate and decieve is not appreciated. To many Americans died and due process was not followed in the capitol crimes.

[ConspiracyTheorist]

98. It was magic ;)

[Christophera]

102. Only The Secret Part. The Rest Must Have Been High Explosives

The magic is the secret that keeps all secrets. Fortunatly all beauty resides there too so we have lots of fun truths to learn.

Let us get past this nasty one right away and get on to the good stuff, okay?