QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 17 2006, 03:49 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 16 2006, 10:28 AM)
My opinion...
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I'm not coming back (Yet), I just want an answer.
Its on the homepage.
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
Where do you get 14.45 times??
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 03:47 AM)
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I'm not coming back (Yet), I just want an answer.
Its on the homepage.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 03:47 AM)
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I attempted to email you through the form on this site. That apparently did not work. Suggestions?
I attempted to email you through the form on this site. That apparently did not work. Suggestions?
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 17 2006, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 03:47 AM)
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I attempted to email you through the form on this site. That apparently did not work. Suggestions?
Post the E-mail here. You know I don't mean YOUR E-mail right?
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I'm not coming back (Yet), I just want an answer.
Its on the homepage.
As for peer review..
Lu XZ., Jiang JJ. Dynamic Finite Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center. China Civil Engineering Journal. 34(6), 2001,8~10
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Thanks. The post pages back was for his conference paper.
The conference paper was rather sketchy and written in poor English. The paper in the regular journal is written in Chinese.
I attempted to email you through the form on this site. That apparently did not work. Suggestions?
Post the E-mail here. You know I don't mean YOUR E-mail right?
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Mar 17 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 03:47 AM)
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
I'm not coming back (Yet), I just want an answer.
Its on the homepage.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 03:47 AM)
As for peer review..
Lu XZ., Jiang JJ. Dynamic Finite Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center. China Civil Engineering Journal. 34(6), 2001,8~10
http://www.luxinzheng.net/enpublications.htm
Thanks. The post pages back was for his conference paper.
The conference paper was rather sketchy and written in poor English. The paper in the regular journal is written in Chinese.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 17 2006, 04:03 AM)
Where do you get 14.45 times??
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
Ok so rather than it being 31:1
it is 31:5 or basically 6 times absolute maximum engineered compressive load.
Try this.
take a paper cup and place it upside down on the floor, now place a block of wood on it and start adding mass slowly and evenly to that block until the cup fails and bends. That is the absolute max load it can sustain. Now arrange 6 times that mass touching but not being supported in any way by an identical paper cup. Next cut the restraints holding that mass , allowing it to bear squarely on the cup. Is there any possibility that the cup will not fail?
That was an ideal situation as well. The load all came down square, all on one horizontal plane.
In the towers diverse columns would have been affected on different floors, the upper section in both towers was leaning (more so in south tower). That would mean a much worse than ideal situation when the upper section did come down.
In fact , redo the above experiment but add a shim that tilts the load a few degrees putting the load slightly off vertical centerline. Is the max load before failure the same or less? If it isn't the same, ( and it won't be and you know it) why?
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
Ok so rather than it being 31:1
it is 31:5 or basically 6 times absolute maximum engineered compressive load.
Try this.
take a paper cup and place it upside down on the floor, now place a block of wood on it and start adding mass slowly and evenly to that block until the cup fails and bends. That is the absolute max load it can sustain. Now arrange 6 times that mass touching but not being supported in any way by an identical paper cup. Next cut the restraints holding that mass , allowing it to bear squarely on the cup. Is there any possibility that the cup will not fail?
That was an ideal situation as well. The load all came down square, all on one horizontal plane.
In the towers diverse columns would have been affected on different floors, the upper section in both towers was leaning (more so in south tower). That would mean a much worse than ideal situation when the upper section did come down.
In fact , redo the above experiment but add a shim that tilts the load a few degrees putting the load slightly off vertical centerline. Is the max load before failure the same or less? If it isn't the same, ( and it won't be and you know it) why?
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 16 2006, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 17 2006, 03:49 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 16 2006, 10:28 AM)
My opinion...
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
I agree with Foxx and believe Christophera is here to spread disinformation. His ridicules pictures and arguments are about as convincing as the pods. However, you are setting up a straw man that has been knocked down in the DU. The new WTC7 is going to be a concrete core and you Cannot easily tell from the outside:
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integri...
There are a few good arguments for concrete walls. Christopher intentionally or unintentionally doesn’t know what they are.
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
I agree with Foxx and believe Christophera is here to spread disinformation. His ridicules pictures and arguments are about as convincing as the pods. However, you are setting up a straw man that has been knocked down in the DU. The new WTC7 is going to be a concrete core and you Cannot easily tell from the outside:
QUOTE
"Most fundamentally, the building will have a concrete core rather than a steel-frame core with drywall partitions.”
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integri...
There are a few good arguments for concrete walls. Christopher intentionally or unintentionally doesn’t know what they are.
Either way, Christophera needs to produce some evidence to back up his concrete core. Or he can go on letting us believe that he is completely full of sh1t.
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 16 2006, 09:44 PM)
Either way, Christophera needs to produce some evidence to back up his concrete core. Or he can go on letting us believe that he is completely full of sh1t.
I agree.I hope it is more then pictures and hand waving ( or a paper cup with a wood block on top representing the floors in the WTC).
I agree.I hope it is more then pictures and hand waving ( or a paper cup with a wood block on top representing the floors in the WTC).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 16 2006, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 17 2006, 03:49 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 16 2006, 10:28 AM)
My opinion...
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
I agree with Foxx and believe Christophera is here to spread disinformation. His ridicules pictures and arguments are about as convincing as the pods. However, you are setting up a straw man that has been knocked down in the DU. The new WTC7 is going to be a concrete core and you Cannot easily tell from the outside:
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integri...
There are a few good arguments for concrete walls. Christopher intentionally or unintentionally doesn’t know what they are.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
Deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall
is clearly discerned in the photographs of the collapse.
brazant zhou are obviously conspiracy theorists. that's 255 support columns just disappearing. from 'one floor', which is actually not possible due to the spandrel 'weave' which spans three floors on the perimieter, and the 47 1000+ft core columns, which makes there no 'one floor' to fall, unless you're talking about a 'wafer thin' floor truss.
so, the 'creep' and the 'buckling' can be IGNORED, according to BZ. the method they are using to explain the possibility of violent movement, is that a violent movement can be SEEN.
and yet, it supposedly the creep and the buckling which allowed the upper part to fall.
no deformation of the columns BEFORE the collapse. they said it.
Christophera is a disinfo agent... comparable to Phil Jayhan and the ridiculous Pod theory.
The fact that there were 47 massive interior core columns is incontestable.
The ONE photo Christophera posts as 'evidence' to his theory is unsupportable when compared to historical evidence.
Notice that the gravity-driven collapse supporters 'attacks' against him are a sham.
Check out 'Democratic Underground'
Sorry... I have to call a 'spade' a 'spade'.
Regardless of the feigned association with CTers... (IMHO)... he works with the disinfo team, as a plant to input strawman theories which can easily be refuted.
I'm not wasting my time addessing concrete core BS. feel free to waste your time with this nonsense if you like.
Concrete Core !!! (my mule)
Investigate for yourself.
Nice try, 'Chris'... you are NOT fooling me
Neither of you appear to want the truth. In fact the exchanges between you appear manufactured to take up space and look like something meaningful. When in fact not only it insignificant information proportionally, it also has no possible use in showing intent.
I have a web site sharing what I know as I use it to analyze hard evidence. It's easy to see the concrete core if a person has a modicum of experience in construction. I see no one invested with evidence reasonably, logically with their opinion of what the truth of 9-11 was at the WTC.
As far as the comparison of the fact of the concrete core, the most common building material on the planet; to the pod; a suggestion induced hallucination, trick of light, error; is devious and disproportionate to a degree that exposes you.
Can you produce one picture showing any sort of concrete forms being set up to pour concrete?
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Until you produce some photos to back this up, you have ZERO credibility
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
If the core was concrete, it would have been poured around a webbing of rebar.
That's why freeway overpasses aren't one giant steel beam with concrete poured around it.
They are concrete poured around a rebar web/skeleton.
I agree with Foxx and believe Christophera is here to spread disinformation. His ridicules pictures and arguments are about as convincing as the pods. However, you are setting up a straw man that has been knocked down in the DU. The new WTC7 is going to be a concrete core and you Cannot easily tell from the outside:
QUOTE
"Most fundamentally, the building will have a concrete core rather than a steel-frame core with drywall partitions.”
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integri...
There are a few good arguments for concrete walls. Christopher intentionally or unintentionally doesn’t know what they are.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 17 2006, 04:01 AM)
... not to mention the ridiculous structural condratictions of encasing steel beams in concrete.
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Apparently you know nothing of what I state existed for the core. Read, view this.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Whoever told you to argue here sent you ill prepared.
You do realize that pouring a concrete core would require many forms be set beforehand. I have never seen one photograph of any such thing.
Apparently you know nothing of what I state existed for the core. Read, view this.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Whoever told you to argue here sent you ill prepared.
deleted
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 15 2006, 10:07 AM)
Hey Foxx, I absolutely agree with your post. These threads come down to tactics. And we've got to change ours somehow. CS is a joke, we can all agree on that, but when something relevant comes up, three pages of spam and it's history. To keep the attention of the viewer not poster is a completely different task. Newton, Gordon, Chris, reasonwhy, yourself, and many others have been kicking their asses for quite a long time now. They are tenacious if nothing else. I guess my question I'm asking myself is how to make these facts surrounding 911 an immediate concern for the "common joe american'. I feel the outrage will come naturally once faced with the facts. Getting people to face something embarrassingly undeniable is a very hard problem. The mass conditioning by the media has been incredibly effective, but I know if our arguments become more focused the truth is undeniable. I think Dr. Jones is key right now, not only because he comes from the reddest school in the reddest state, this alone has made a few heads turn. So 'CTers are just Bush haters' fell on it's *** when he came forward. Obviously from this thread they are trying to associate him with intelligent design and extreme Christianity, while ignoring the crux of the paper: WTC 7 fall time, symmetry, and behavior. I'd really like to hear some suggestions from anyone on this PLEASE. I know this is a physics blog and may not be appropriate, but these facts have to be marketed to the GP somehow for it to gain any traction. I'm sure Americans will do the right thing when it comes time, they have to be exposed to the facts first.
The media has failed the public not just wrt 911, but wrt many topics.
One of the most important stories of the past 15 years - the US's use of depleted uranium munitions - has gone largely unreported. This is an uber failure of our collective institutions (not just media) and even our civilization.
Google DU and Rokke to learn about DU, if you don't know, already. Also, read the book "Into the Buzzsaw", and see leftgatekeepers.com for insight into the general problem.
The media needs to be replaced (I mean, of course, it's major players, not every last media person or institution.). It is gangrenous, and cannot be reformed, IMO.
I have brainstormed a way out of this mess, and the core ideas have been posted in a thread entitled:
"Putting the NY Times Out of Business, Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...topic=76406&hl=
Unfortunately, I've had no time to work on this.
Regarding "shills": I'm loathe to speculate on motives, since you can't prove them. But IMO, if you postulate popes as covert op shills, you need to think beyond any purpose they have to convince anybody reasonably acquainted with the information and reasonably intelligent, on an internet forum, of their Fairy Tale points of view. They cannot do this (in general), anymore than you or I can get a "pope" to admit the obvious. The evidence is just too overwhelming.
Therefore if you postulate functions as disruptors, this implies that their primary MO is 1) spamming; their job is to waste our time and create a confused and chaotic environment, which is naturally counterproductive and thus demoralizing to busy individuals and perhaps, additionally, 2) somewhat of a control mechanism to send a subtle message to credible individuals that their will suffer relentless character assassinations if they go public with their views.
However, IMO, issues regarding real or imagined shills on internet forums pale in comparison with the effect of having a corrupted main stream media. This is basically a numbers game. While you and I may spend lots of time online, and while the trend is away from television to the internet, the simple fact is that TV is king.
If activists are serious about DU, 911, or any other major issue, then they cannot ignore the media problem. I would even go so far as to say that, unless the media if fixed, very few (if any) of the other major evils of our day will be corrected. Unfortunately, I get the sense that many 911 activists believe that "if only" they can get the word out to the main stream media, then all will be sweetness and light.
The premise is deeply flawed, and so is the inference.
The media has failed the public not just wrt 911, but wrt many topics.
One of the most important stories of the past 15 years - the US's use of depleted uranium munitions - has gone largely unreported. This is an uber failure of our collective institutions (not just media) and even our civilization.
Google DU and Rokke to learn about DU, if you don't know, already. Also, read the book "Into the Buzzsaw", and see leftgatekeepers.com for insight into the general problem.
The media needs to be replaced (I mean, of course, it's major players, not every last media person or institution.). It is gangrenous, and cannot be reformed, IMO.
I have brainstormed a way out of this mess, and the core ideas have been posted in a thread entitled:
"Putting the NY Times Out of Business, Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...topic=76406&hl=
Unfortunately, I've had no time to work on this.
Regarding "shills": I'm loathe to speculate on motives, since you can't prove them. But IMO, if you postulate popes as covert op shills, you need to think beyond any purpose they have to convince anybody reasonably acquainted with the information and reasonably intelligent, on an internet forum, of their Fairy Tale points of view. They cannot do this (in general), anymore than you or I can get a "pope" to admit the obvious. The evidence is just too overwhelming.
Therefore if you postulate functions as disruptors, this implies that their primary MO is 1) spamming; their job is to waste our time and create a confused and chaotic environment, which is naturally counterproductive and thus demoralizing to busy individuals and perhaps, additionally, 2) somewhat of a control mechanism to send a subtle message to credible individuals that their will suffer relentless character assassinations if they go public with their views.
However, IMO, issues regarding real or imagined shills on internet forums pale in comparison with the effect of having a corrupted main stream media. This is basically a numbers game. While you and I may spend lots of time online, and while the trend is away from television to the internet, the simple fact is that TV is king.
If activists are serious about DU, 911, or any other major issue, then they cannot ignore the media problem. I would even go so far as to say that, unless the media if fixed, very few (if any) of the other major evils of our day will be corrected. Unfortunately, I get the sense that many 911 activists believe that "if only" they can get the word out to the main stream media, then all will be sweetness and light.
The premise is deeply flawed, and so is the inference.
QUOTE
For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic |
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
Deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall
is clearly discerned in the photographs of the collapse.
brazant zhou are obviously conspiracy theorists. that's 255 support columns just disappearing. from 'one floor', which is actually not possible due to the spandrel 'weave' which spans three floors on the perimieter, and the 47 1000+ft core columns, which makes there no 'one floor' to fall, unless you're talking about a 'wafer thin' floor truss.
so, the 'creep' and the 'buckling' can be IGNORED, according to BZ. the method they are using to explain the possibility of violent movement, is that a violent movement can be SEEN.
and yet, it supposedly the creep and the buckling which allowed the upper part to fall.
no deformation of the columns BEFORE the collapse. they said it.
OK RC, I'll answer my own post since you declined.
The pancake theory requires us to believe that the falling mass accelerated at a rate close to gravitational acceleration. This necessarly implies that a greater number of floors were being crushed per unit of time towards the end of the collpase.
9/11 heretics on the other hand say:
1) it is extremely unlikely that a structurally sound building would pancake from the top all the way down,
2) if this did occur, pancaking floors would have insufficient momentum to pulverise the entire mass of the building as we have observed.
Your argument seems to be a circular one in that you have an a priori assumption that the collapse occurred soley due to gravitational acceleration from the top down, so you see no problem with the rate of destruction of many intact floors, whereas the 9/11 heretics (me included) think that the only way to produce the observed phenomena would be to weaken the core supports on many floors, thus allowing the building's mass to accelerate at close to gravitaional acceleration.
All of the above arguments also apply to the collapse of WTC 7, with the added complication (for the official theory) that there was no 757 embedded in this building.
(: hereward
The pancake theory requires us to believe that the falling mass accelerated at a rate close to gravitational acceleration. This necessarly implies that a greater number of floors were being crushed per unit of time towards the end of the collpase.
9/11 heretics on the other hand say:
1) it is extremely unlikely that a structurally sound building would pancake from the top all the way down,
2) if this did occur, pancaking floors would have insufficient momentum to pulverise the entire mass of the building as we have observed.
Your argument seems to be a circular one in that you have an a priori assumption that the collapse occurred soley due to gravitational acceleration from the top down, so you see no problem with the rate of destruction of many intact floors, whereas the 9/11 heretics (me included) think that the only way to produce the observed phenomena would be to weaken the core supports on many floors, thus allowing the building's mass to accelerate at close to gravitaional acceleration.
All of the above arguments also apply to the collapse of WTC 7, with the added complication (for the official theory) that there was no 757 embedded in this building.
(: hereward
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 05:23 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 17 2006, 04:03 AM)
Where do you get 14.45 times??
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
Ok so rather than it being 31:1
it is 31:5 or basically 6 times absolute maximum engineered compressive load.
Try this.
take a paper cup and place it upside down on the floor, now place a block of wood on it and start adding mass slowly and evenly to that block until the cup fails and bends. That is the absolute max load it can sustain. Now arrange 6 times that mass touching but not being supported in any way by an identical paper cup. Next cut the restraints holding that mass , allowing it to bear squarely on the cup. Is there any possibility that the cup will not fail?
That was an ideal situation as well. The load all came down square, all on one horizontal plane.
In the towers diverse columns would have been affected on different floors, the upper section in both towers was leaning (more so in south tower). That would mean a much worse than ideal situation when the upper section did come down.
In fact , redo the above experiment but add a shim that tilts the load a few degrees putting the load slightly off vertical centerline. Is the max load before failure the same or less? If it isn't the same, ( and it won't be and you know it) why?
.jpg)
GORDON CAN BRING IT !!!!!!!
My recollection was that the overbuilt margin was 5 times design load, you are putting it at over 15 times.
Failure was due to buckling and fracture.
I used a factor of 5 and worked it through BZ's equation.
Note that the figure of 31 was the ratio of the impact load to the load which was currently being carried - check it out. There is no factor of safety in BZ, but extensive steel temperatures of 800 C is assumed.
That figure does not have regard to the mode of failure.
Regarding KE, it doesn't matter how fast it got, that would only influence the maximum possible transient impact load, the energy was limited to mgh. The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
Ok so rather than it being 31:1
it is 31:5 or basically 6 times absolute maximum engineered compressive load.
Try this.
take a paper cup and place it upside down on the floor, now place a block of wood on it and start adding mass slowly and evenly to that block until the cup fails and bends. That is the absolute max load it can sustain. Now arrange 6 times that mass touching but not being supported in any way by an identical paper cup. Next cut the restraints holding that mass , allowing it to bear squarely on the cup. Is there any possibility that the cup will not fail?
That was an ideal situation as well. The load all came down square, all on one horizontal plane.
In the towers diverse columns would have been affected on different floors, the upper section in both towers was leaning (more so in south tower). That would mean a much worse than ideal situation when the upper section did come down.
In fact , redo the above experiment but add a shim that tilts the load a few degrees putting the load slightly off vertical centerline. Is the max load before failure the same or less? If it isn't the same, ( and it won't be and you know it) why?
GORDON CAN BRING IT !!!!!!!
CSpam[QUOTE] I don't know how many times I have to say this,
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple... blink.gif
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple... blink.gif
>Hi!
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
WHAT A IDIOT! HEH!
CS that seems to imply that they are confusing WTC7 with the towers.
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 05:53 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 16 2006, 09:44 PM)
Either way, Christophera needs to produce some evidence to back up his concrete core. Or he can go on letting us believe that he is completely full of sh1t.
I agree.I hope it is more then pictures and hand waving ( or a paper cup with a wood block on top representing the floors in the WTC).
oooh, the worst insult so far. Comparing me to a nut-job like Christophera
If Christophera's only question was the fallacy of a concrete core it might not be so bad , but the explosives-installed-during-construction-30-years-ago lunacy certainly does put him squarely in the same folder as the hologram-aircraft and the pod people.
Seems Foxx is not the only one on which analogies are completely lost.
I suppose I could suggest one rebuild the WTC towers exactly as before then cause damage that one believes occured and set fires to mimic those on 9/11 and then see what happens. Perhaps 5 or 6 of them so that we can vary the amount of damage and fires. Of course someone will have to come up with the money.
Or perhaps long running FEA modelling could be done (oooh no, too many people have faulted NIST for running computer models) and the above can be done.
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
Deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall
is clearly discerned in the photographs of the collapse.
brazant zhou are obviously conspiracy theorists. that's 255 support columns just disappearing. from 'one floor', which is actually not possible due to the spandrel 'weave' which spans three floors on the perimieter, and the 47 1000+ft core columns, which makes there no 'one floor' to fall, unless you're talking about a 'wafer thin' floor truss.
so, the 'creep' and the 'buckling' can be IGNORED, according to BZ. the method they are using to explain the possibility of violent movement, is that a violent movement can be SEEN.
and yet, it supposedly the creep and the buckling which allowed the upper part to fall.
no deformation of the columns BEFORE the collapse. they said it.
(emphasis mine)
Say now, there's an interesting idea!
We are people conspiracy theorists, and they are things conspiracy theorists. They believe that beams and floors conspired in a way that we would deem miraculous, as though by a malevolent God.
Which viewpoint is more rational?
Heck, maybe the towers wanted to collapse....
Prove that they didn't!!!
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
Probably not.
I agree.I hope it is more then pictures and hand waving ( or a paper cup with a wood block on top representing the floors in the WTC).
oooh, the worst insult so far. Comparing me to a nut-job like Christophera
If Christophera's only question was the fallacy of a concrete core it might not be so bad , but the explosives-installed-during-construction-30-years-ago lunacy certainly does put him squarely in the same folder as the hologram-aircraft and the pod people.
Seems Foxx is not the only one on which analogies are completely lost.
I suppose I could suggest one rebuild the WTC towers exactly as before then cause damage that one believes occured and set fires to mimic those on 9/11 and then see what happens. Perhaps 5 or 6 of them so that we can vary the amount of damage and fires. Of course someone will have to come up with the money.
Or perhaps long running FEA modelling could be done (oooh no, too many people have faulted NIST for running computer models) and the above can be done.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 17 2006, 08:51 AM)
QUOTE
For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.the energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic |
it would fail differently. once the tower started leaning(as seen in all the footage), there is less mass on one side, amd more on the other. the side with less mass could survive, and the collapse could be asymmetric.
false premises beget false results.
Deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall
is clearly discerned in the photographs of the collapse.
brazant zhou are obviously conspiracy theorists. that's 255 support columns just disappearing. from 'one floor', which is actually not possible due to the spandrel 'weave' which spans three floors on the perimieter, and the 47 1000+ft core columns, which makes there no 'one floor' to fall, unless you're talking about a 'wafer thin' floor truss.
so, the 'creep' and the 'buckling' can be IGNORED, according to BZ. the method they are using to explain the possibility of violent movement, is that a violent movement can be SEEN.
and yet, it supposedly the creep and the buckling which allowed the upper part to fall.
no deformation of the columns BEFORE the collapse. they said it.
(emphasis mine)
Say now, there's an interesting idea!
We are people conspiracy theorists, and they are things conspiracy theorists. They believe that beams and floors conspired in a way that we would deem miraculous, as though by a malevolent God.
Which viewpoint is more rational?
Heck, maybe the towers wanted to collapse....
Prove that they didn't!!!
ohfurchrissake, B-Z simplified the analysis by reducing some elements. One way to do this was to assume failure at one floor, another was to minimize the creep.
I would have thought that at least metamars would 'get' that.
I would have thought that at least metamars would 'get' that.
regarding the physical conspiracy mentioned by metamars
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
it was a physical conspiracy.
you see, the lower columns knew that they were going to be crushed by a rapid descent of the upper storeys, and so, in anticipation of this runaway freight train, they counted to ten and JUMPED OUT OF THE WAY, removing all support from the cap, turning it into a runaway freight train.
much like the chicken and the egg. which came first? the falling one storey, or the failure that causes falling? according to BZ, it's the fall that happens first, as the deformation can be IGNORED, according to them. that means, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. and the tilt can be ignored, because it's not 'opto-mystic'.
i realise that buckling can be seen in the seconds before collapse. removing 'one floor's worth' of support columns from the core would cause the rapid buckling on the perimeter. you COULD use explosive's to do this, although there would then be sounds of explosions and fireballs shooting out the side of the building, which are clearly not 'opto-mystic'.
i'm sure the toner cartridges and the copiers were in on it.
you see, the lower columns knew that they were going to be crushed by a rapid descent of the upper storeys, and so, in anticipation of this runaway freight train, they counted to ten and JUMPED OUT OF THE WAY, removing all support from the cap, turning it into a runaway freight train.
much like the chicken and the egg. which came first? the falling one storey, or the failure that causes falling? according to BZ, it's the fall that happens first, as the deformation can be IGNORED, according to them. that means, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. and the tilt can be ignored, because it's not 'opto-mystic'.
i realise that buckling can be seen in the seconds before collapse. removing 'one floor's worth' of support columns from the core would cause the rapid buckling on the perimeter. you COULD use explosive's to do this, although there would then be sounds of explosions and fireballs shooting out the side of the building, which are clearly not 'opto-mystic'.
i'm sure the toner cartridges and the copiers were in on it.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 01:57 PM)
CS that seems to imply that they are confusing WTC7 with the towers.
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 01:07 PM)
>Hi!
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
Wow....his explanation for the descrepancy does not sound reasonable at all. Not only would his model only collapse completely in the impossible scenario that the fracture strain of the steel was just .5, but it took nearly two minutes - data that he strangely does not include in his paper. Just from that its hard to imagine that a larger area of weakened steel could conceivable produce collapse times that even come close to the observed time on 9/11 (which does not exceed 12 seconds).
It has become evident why the NIST completely avoids modeling the collapse.
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
Wow....his explanation for the descrepancy does not sound reasonable at all. Not only would his model only collapse completely in the impossible scenario that the fracture strain of the steel was just .5, but it took nearly two minutes - data that he strangely does not include in his paper. Just from that its hard to imagine that a larger area of weakened steel could conceivable produce collapse times that even come close to the observed time on 9/11 (which does not exceed 12 seconds).
It has become evident why the NIST completely avoids modeling the collapse.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
Probably not.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 05:16 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 01:57 PM)
CS that seems to imply that they are confusing WTC7 with the towers.
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
Because this .......
......... is what is given as the reason , by NIST and FEMA, that the fires in WTC 7 had such an effect, not the towers. If in fact the towers were influenced by an oil flow this is the first I have heard of it.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
No. But maybe if he drew some colored arrows on it he could fool a few people.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
Probably not.
Meaning that most are not using evidence in their analysis, conjecture based on a strcuture that never existed while they cannot prove it existed. Knowingly wasting their time and, somee, perhaps, hoping others will too.
I say it was concrete because I watched a documentary mostly devoted to the concrete core. This image completely supports what I saw being constructed.
If I say the core was made from steel reinforced concrete shearwall, then their should be pictures of rebar, well ........... here it is.
Those who do not believe the core was concrete need to support what they believe existed or stop denying that concrete is the only material that can have the appearance of the top image which is secondarily supported by the bottom image.
If they do not, they are unreasonable and not employing logic. Meanging they either do not have the intellectual capacity or the integrity to reason to use logic. A third option is that they do not want others to use logic or reason with the information because they are devoted to supporting the lie.
Reply by reasonwhy...
Reply by reasonwhy...
"Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete? "
Personally, I don't... at all.
The photo comes from a series taken from across the Hudson (apparently by a fellow named Aman Zafar).
His original site seems to be offline the last time I checked, and I had to go to the Internet Archives to retrieve the original series.
There doesn't appear to be 'trickery' in the original set that this photo came from - even Hoffman has used some of the photos from this series (including the one above) on his site.
The question of course revolves around what exactly are we seeing in the photo. Some (specifically Christophera) have jumped to the conclusion that this shows the 'core'.
That is not so 'crystal clear' to me.
Although photos can speak a thousand words, they can also be deceiving (ie - the photos Jayhan uses to promote the 'pod theory' ).
I blew the photo up to the point it begins to pixelate, and to me (after doing so) it appears to be nebulous and less defined than it appears in the above photo - more like a coincidental snapshot of the central 'cloud' that appeared as the dust of the 'collapse' was settling.
This 'cloud' can be seen in photos taken from many different perspectives, yet in none of the other photos taken from different perspectives does this central 'cloud' appear to be as defined as in the particular photo being discussed. This fact alone leads me to suspect that the photo (above) is nothing more than an 'odd' photo of this particular central 'cloud' which just happens to look like a solid defined shape in smaller photos (like as posted above). The immediate disappearance of the 'defined' shape in subsequent photos showing the dispersal of this central 'cloud' suggests (to me) that that is ALL it is.
As has been noted, the onus is upon Christophera /Algoxy to show photos from other perspectives which support the idea that a solid object is the correct interpretation of the above photo, and so far he has been unable to corroberate this.
The statement above made by Christophera that...
"No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist"...
...Is so easily refuted by photos of the demolition site, that it is clearly not true. In many photos of GZ are columnar sections that are obviously larger than perimeter tree columns... are singular columns... and yet are not quite quite as large as the 12" x 36" 'outer ring' columns of the central core.
Now, Christophera... I am not claiming (at this point) that you are a deliberate 'disinformationist'.
Perhaps you have become so wrapped up in your theory, that you are missing or glossing-over evidence which negates your theory - such as articles from Engineering News Report, and the obvious disregard for photos which DO show these interior central core photos...
ie -
and...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
As part of your 'evidence' you claim seeing an old documentary (which coincidentally NO ONE else seems to have seen). Perhaps, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do some more research to find corroberating evidence that this mysterious video ever existed.
I have gone over your 'witness evidence' of internet articles which refer to a 'concrete core' and found them to be sadly lacking as evidentiary 'proof' that can be trusted. Most of these (that I recall) are written by people who had no direct knowledge of the actual construction of the WTC from an engineering perspective. The one that stands out in my mind was a reference made to a steel-reinforced concrete core which was written by some hi-schooler who wrote the article as a school project. I don't remember whether you claim that the BBC article which showed a diagram of the central core was concrete...
... is more 'evidence' of a concrete core... but IF you DO, you really should re-adjust your evaluation.
The editors of BBC seriously flubbed on that diagram - (not that I blame them as being PART of the 'grand conspiracy') - in the initial hubbub after the terrorist attack... EVERY news agency and even some engineering sites were publishing articles 'from-the-hip' without checking the facts and while they had no access to blueprints (which they still don't) so... such publications must really be taken with a grain of salt.
I will grant that you 'talk-the-talk' with regard to governmental conspiracies, but I'm sorry - just not convincing (to me) given that in all of your posts, you seem to emphasize this from the perspective that this all revolves around your main premise that the towers had a central CONCRETE core.
Personally I view your 'insistence' upon this aspect, to be highly suspect... much like the writings of Eugene Tannenbaum or Phil Jayhan. It becomes like a straw-man issue... a false 'conclusion' being purposely 'set-up' so that it can be knocked down - thereby discrediting the entire truth movement by association.
Sorry, but you would need MUCH MORE convincing 'proof' to sway my opinion to the 'concrete core' theory.
Perhaps you would like to develop some, beyond the one photo you seem to utilize as 'core' to your theory?
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
Because this .......
QUOTE
much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
......... is what is given as the reason , by NIST and FEMA, that the fires in WTC 7 had such an effect, not the towers. If in fact the towers were influenced by an oil flow this is the first I have heard of it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
No. But maybe if he drew some colored arrows on it he could fool a few people.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
Probably not.
Meaning that most are not using evidence in their analysis, conjecture based on a strcuture that never existed while they cannot prove it existed. Knowingly wasting their time and, somee, perhaps, hoping others will too.
I say it was concrete because I watched a documentary mostly devoted to the concrete core. This image completely supports what I saw being constructed.
If I say the core was made from steel reinforced concrete shearwall, then their should be pictures of rebar, well ........... here it is.
Those who do not believe the core was concrete need to support what they believe existed or stop denying that concrete is the only material that can have the appearance of the top image which is secondarily supported by the bottom image.
If they do not, they are unreasonable and not employing logic. Meanging they either do not have the intellectual capacity or the integrity to reason to use logic. A third option is that they do not want others to use logic or reason with the information because they are devoted to supporting the lie.
QUOTE
by Christophera
"mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous."
"mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous."
Reply by reasonwhy...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Christophera "mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist. There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous." |
Reply by reasonwhy...
"Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete? "
Personally, I don't... at all.
The photo comes from a series taken from across the Hudson (apparently by a fellow named Aman Zafar).
His original site seems to be offline the last time I checked, and I had to go to the Internet Archives to retrieve the original series.
There doesn't appear to be 'trickery' in the original set that this photo came from - even Hoffman has used some of the photos from this series (including the one above) on his site.
The question of course revolves around what exactly are we seeing in the photo. Some (specifically Christophera) have jumped to the conclusion that this shows the 'core'.
That is not so 'crystal clear' to me.
Although photos can speak a thousand words, they can also be deceiving (ie - the photos Jayhan uses to promote the 'pod theory' ).
I blew the photo up to the point it begins to pixelate, and to me (after doing so) it appears to be nebulous and less defined than it appears in the above photo - more like a coincidental snapshot of the central 'cloud' that appeared as the dust of the 'collapse' was settling.
This 'cloud' can be seen in photos taken from many different perspectives, yet in none of the other photos taken from different perspectives does this central 'cloud' appear to be as defined as in the particular photo being discussed. This fact alone leads me to suspect that the photo (above) is nothing more than an 'odd' photo of this particular central 'cloud' which just happens to look like a solid defined shape in smaller photos (like as posted above). The immediate disappearance of the 'defined' shape in subsequent photos showing the dispersal of this central 'cloud' suggests (to me) that that is ALL it is.
As has been noted, the onus is upon Christophera /Algoxy to show photos from other perspectives which support the idea that a solid object is the correct interpretation of the above photo, and so far he has been unable to corroberate this.
The statement above made by Christophera that...
"No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist"...
...Is so easily refuted by photos of the demolition site, that it is clearly not true. In many photos of GZ are columnar sections that are obviously larger than perimeter tree columns... are singular columns... and yet are not quite quite as large as the 12" x 36" 'outer ring' columns of the central core.
Now, Christophera... I am not claiming (at this point) that you are a deliberate 'disinformationist'.
Perhaps you have become so wrapped up in your theory, that you are missing or glossing-over evidence which negates your theory - such as articles from Engineering News Report, and the obvious disregard for photos which DO show these interior central core photos...
ie -
and...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
As part of your 'evidence' you claim seeing an old documentary (which coincidentally NO ONE else seems to have seen). Perhaps, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do some more research to find corroberating evidence that this mysterious video ever existed.
I have gone over your 'witness evidence' of internet articles which refer to a 'concrete core' and found them to be sadly lacking as evidentiary 'proof' that can be trusted. Most of these (that I recall) are written by people who had no direct knowledge of the actual construction of the WTC from an engineering perspective. The one that stands out in my mind was a reference made to a steel-reinforced concrete core which was written by some hi-schooler who wrote the article as a school project. I don't remember whether you claim that the BBC article which showed a diagram of the central core was concrete...
... is more 'evidence' of a concrete core... but IF you DO, you really should re-adjust your evaluation.
The editors of BBC seriously flubbed on that diagram - (not that I blame them as being PART of the 'grand conspiracy') - in the initial hubbub after the terrorist attack... EVERY news agency and even some engineering sites were publishing articles 'from-the-hip' without checking the facts and while they had no access to blueprints (which they still don't) so... such publications must really be taken with a grain of salt.
I will grant that you 'talk-the-talk' with regard to governmental conspiracies, but I'm sorry - just not convincing (to me) given that in all of your posts, you seem to emphasize this from the perspective that this all revolves around your main premise that the towers had a central CONCRETE core.
Personally I view your 'insistence' upon this aspect, to be highly suspect... much like the writings of Eugene Tannenbaum or Phil Jayhan. It becomes like a straw-man issue... a false 'conclusion' being purposely 'set-up' so that it can be knocked down - thereby discrediting the entire truth movement by association.
Sorry, but you would need MUCH MORE convincing 'proof' to sway my opinion to the 'concrete core' theory.
Perhaps you would like to develop some, beyond the one photo you seem to utilize as 'core' to your theory?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 05:16 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 17 2006, 01:57 PM)
CS that seems to imply that they are confusing WTC7 with the towers.
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
Because this .......
......... is what is given as the reason , by NIST and FEMA, that the fires in WTC 7 had such an effect, not the towers. If in fact the towers were influenced by an oil flow this is the first I have heard of it.
As you can tell from his web site he is Chinese. I thought he meant jet fuel which I believe is in the NIST report as falling down the shafts and burning people and such. But even if he didn't, that would do nothing other than say oil isn't the cause of the fall time. I'm sure hes not using the WTC7 construction plans in the simulation.
I'm going to clarify tonight and get back to you. Most likely on the weekend or Monday. I'm not sure if he reads E-mails on the weekends.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
Do you find my above analysis to be of any 'help' ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74806
If they are making that mistake then what other mistakes did they make in parameters they used in the modelling?
I don't understand what you mean. He gives times for each tower. How could he be thinking building 7?
Because this .......
QUOTE
much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
......... is what is given as the reason , by NIST and FEMA, that the fires in WTC 7 had such an effect, not the towers. If in fact the towers were influenced by an oil flow this is the first I have heard of it.
As you can tell from his web site he is Chinese. I thought he meant jet fuel which I believe is in the NIST report as falling down the shafts and burning people and such. But even if he didn't, that would do nothing other than say oil isn't the cause of the fall time. I'm sure hes not using the WTC7 construction plans in the simulation.
I'm going to clarify tonight and get back to you. Most likely on the weekend or Monday. I'm not sure if he reads E-mails on the weekends.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 16 2006, 11:37 PM)
I can support the fact of a concrete core with one image,
mostly because no one has explained why the supposed steel core columns are not seen in that image and others. No images of the supposed steel core columns from the demolition exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the steel core columns, so the term "incontestable" to describe them, is ridiculous.
Does anyone else think this proves the core is concrete?
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
Do you find my above analysis to be of any 'help' ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74806
First appearance of the Algoxy / Christophera site on the web...
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Scheister'
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by 'Scheister' Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours. |
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 17 2006, 08:34 PM)
First appearance of the Algoxy / Christophera site on the web...
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Scheister'
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by 'Scheister' Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours. |
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 17 2006, 08:43 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 17 2006, 08:34 PM)
First appearance of the Algoxy / Christophera site on the web...
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
Ahhhh, yes....
and then there is always the coastal duck... always lurking and watching.
Although he doesn't add much input, he is quick to Quack, when damaging info comes to light.
'The Schneibster' doesn't lurk under my bed, Quack.
But, let's see... do you support this 'concrete core' theory promoted by both 'The Schneibster' and 'Algoxy' ???
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Scheister'
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by 'Scheister' Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours. |
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
Ahhhh, yes....
and then there is always the coastal duck... always lurking and watching.
Although he doesn't add much input, he is quick to Quack, when damaging info comes to light.
'The Schneibster' doesn't lurk under my bed, Quack.
But, let's see... do you support this 'concrete core' theory promoted by both 'The Schneibster' and 'Algoxy' ???
Foxx has completely failed again (you are not alone) to support whatever core you think stood.
Foxx
...Is so easily refuted by photos of the demolition site, that it is clearly not true. In many photos of GZ are columnar sections that are obviously larger than perimeter tree columns... are singular columns... and yet are not quite quite as large as the 12" x 36" 'outer ring' columns of the central core.
Conveniently you do not mention the logical explanation of those helicopter photos which has been posted at least 3 times. I did not notate the below image. The site where I copied it believed in the official core story, but they were honest and distinguished between the small vertical steel and the “MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS”and only notated the ring of heavy columns surrounding the core, interior box columns.
The following image I did notate. The above has better resolution.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC.overhea...ils-columns.gif
Foxx
As part of your 'evidence' you claim seeing an old documentary (which coincidentally NO ONE else seems to have seen).
Actually Foxx, I have found others. If I scanned the declaration I have from a structural engineer who not only saw it, but remembered well the concrete core, that wouldn’t matter. You do not use available information, you want unavailable information.
Waste of time.
You are wasting my time right now by making me recap the helicopter photos. After I told him how FEMA represented the core, he refused, out of fear, to make his declaration include that. I have found at least 2 others that have seen either the documentary or one made from its clips. Both remember the concrete core.
Foxx
The editors of BBC seriously flubbed on that diagram
As I state again, your tactic of wasting my time works against you. This factor is well detailed on both pages. You do not care enough to read.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
http://concretecore.741.com/
That you should try to pass off the below image as an interior core column is absurd. For all one can tell it is a piece of steel from another building. I know it for what it is and have posted a full explanation before. You continue to waste my time.
[img]
http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/4302/image51un.jpg[/img]
It is an interior box column from high in the building. Note it is square. Interior box columns were tapered near the base of the towers as can be seen below.
You are about supporting deception and subverting efforts to find truth with confusion and distraction.
Then you fail, one more time, to explain why none of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are seen in these photos where they would have to show IF they existed.
You fail to explain what the below image is, just posted, if it is not what I say it is. I claim the core is concrete so there must be rebar.
Rebar is what the fine vertical elements are, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html has a description of WHY the concrete is missing. It links to the info of the 1990 PBS documentary.
So, ............. the credibility of your several brains is quickly disapearing by failing to explain why your "official core" is not seen while the core I remember from the documentary is seen over and over in pictures of the demolition.
Foxx
...Is so easily refuted by photos of the demolition site, that it is clearly not true. In many photos of GZ are columnar sections that are obviously larger than perimeter tree columns... are singular columns... and yet are not quite quite as large as the 12" x 36" 'outer ring' columns of the central core.
Conveniently you do not mention the logical explanation of those helicopter photos which has been posted at least 3 times. I did not notate the below image. The site where I copied it believed in the official core story, but they were honest and distinguished between the small vertical steel and the “MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS”and only notated the ring of heavy columns surrounding the core, interior box columns.
The following image I did notate. The above has better resolution.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC.overhea...ils-columns.gif
Foxx
As part of your 'evidence' you claim seeing an old documentary (which coincidentally NO ONE else seems to have seen).
Actually Foxx, I have found others. If I scanned the declaration I have from a structural engineer who not only saw it, but remembered well the concrete core, that wouldn’t matter. You do not use available information, you want unavailable information.
Waste of time.
You are wasting my time right now by making me recap the helicopter photos. After I told him how FEMA represented the core, he refused, out of fear, to make his declaration include that. I have found at least 2 others that have seen either the documentary or one made from its clips. Both remember the concrete core.
Foxx
The editors of BBC seriously flubbed on that diagram
As I state again, your tactic of wasting my time works against you. This factor is well detailed on both pages. You do not care enough to read.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
http://concretecore.741.com/
That you should try to pass off the below image as an interior core column is absurd. For all one can tell it is a piece of steel from another building. I know it for what it is and have posted a full explanation before. You continue to waste my time.
[img]
http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/4302/image51un.jpg[/img]
It is an interior box column from high in the building. Note it is square. Interior box columns were tapered near the base of the towers as can be seen below.
You are about supporting deception and subverting efforts to find truth with confusion and distraction.
Then you fail, one more time, to explain why none of the supposed 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are seen in these photos where they would have to show IF they existed.
You fail to explain what the below image is, just posted, if it is not what I say it is. I claim the core is concrete so there must be rebar.
Rebar is what the fine vertical elements are, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html has a description of WHY the concrete is missing. It links to the info of the 1990 PBS documentary.
So, ............. the credibility of your several brains is quickly disapearing by failing to explain why your "official core" is not seen while the core I remember from the documentary is seen over and over in pictures of the demolition.
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 17 2006, 08:43 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 17 2006, 08:34 PM)
First appearance of the Algoxy / Christophera site on the web...
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
Strawman manufacturing
Misrepresenting an opponents position.
There were NO steel columns anywhere inside the core of the towers. This is at least the third time I having to clarify this here. You don't read, or read around what doesn't serve your confusion agenda.
The core was ONE rectangular tube, 80' x 120' inside, steel reinforced, shearwall construction of cast concrete.
Some of the interior box columns, outside the core, fastened to it were encased in concrete at the base only.
PS: Hey, I wonder if these CTers would 'implode' (hehehe) if there was no-one left for them to call 'Schneibster', 'shill', 'murderer', 'obfuscater' etc. Do you think they'd start turning on themselves just to have something to aim their lunacy at?
RC.
That's exactly what happens.
I've seen it over and over again on other threads and kook sites.
PS: Hey, I wonder if these CTers would 'implode' (hehehe) if there was no-one left for them to call 'Schneibster', 'shill', 'murderer', 'obfuscater' etc. Do you think they'd start turning on themselves just to have something to aim their lunacy at?
RC.
That's exactly what happens.
I've seen it over and over again on other threads and kook sites.
Unlike the official gravity-driven collapse supporters, alternative theory investigators do not come here with pre-conceived fairy tale notions.
Personally, I do not see internal 'meltdowns' happening between anti-governmental story theorists, but rather intellectual pursuits to determine the REAL facts.
The official gov't story supporters wish to present the 'Algoxy / Concrete-Core' theory as representative of CTers belief.
As I have implied / said ... I do NOT consider Christophera to be on the side of truth, but rather a representative on the side of disinformationists... a straw-man plant, that OCT's can utilize to their advantage. This is evident by the 'support' for their 'side' they imply that Algoxy represents.
Ah, what fun the information wars represent.
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
You appear to be using the style of common sense/disinformation team with the large fonts.
If you are not on the disinformation team they will learn from this and use plants like you in the future. Your spam is no different then Common Sense/disinformation teams. The OCT falls apart with or without a concrete core and you haven’t added anything constructive that I have read.
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Niether thermite or magnesium would burn for the length of time indicated.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Both posts based on pure speculation and could just as easily have been posted by Common Sence.
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
You appear to be using the style of common sense/disinformation team with the large fonts.
If you are not on the disinformation team they will learn from this and use plants like you in the future. Your spam is no different then Common Sense/disinformation teams. The OCT falls apart with or without a concrete core and you haven’t added anything constructive that I have read.
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Niether thermite or magnesium would burn for the length of time indicated.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Both post based on pure speculation and could just as easily have been posted by Common Sence.
So you have chosen to try and dance with a
Strawman in discussion,
not weak but insignificant aspect focused on rather than crux of issue. The tower core.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns not seen in photos of the demolition?
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I suspect that when Dr. Lu says oil here he is probably referring to jet fuel, it may be a minor issue with translation. I don't have any reason to suspect that this email is not genuine. Whether it provides an explanation for the discrepancy between the computed and observed collapse times is another issue.
Elevator guide rails... anyone?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
Elevator guide rails... anyone?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
Looks more like a piece of rebar to me...
Feb 20 2005...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
which leads to...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
And let's all remember that it was 'The Schneibster' who first put forward the 'concrete core' theory on THIS thread...
----------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Scheister'
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by 'Scheister' Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours. |
Would you? Hmmmmm ??? ....
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Reply by Foxx: ..."Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?...
-------------------
Coincidences... Oh, coincidences.
Under Foxx's bed......
...lives Schneibster.
Strawman manufacturing
Misrepresenting an opponents position.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Scheister
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
There were NO steel columns anywhere inside the core of the towers. This is at least the third time I having to clarify this here. You don't read, or read around what doesn't serve your confusion agenda.
The core was ONE rectangular tube, 80' x 120' inside, steel reinforced, shearwall construction of cast concrete.
Some of the interior box columns, outside the core, fastened to it were encased in concrete at the base only.
The following clips show the remnants of the core of WTC2 standing after progression of the collapse to ground level. Some are easier to see than others, but the distinctive stepped pyramid shape of the top can be identified. This does not give us any more idea whether it had concrete in it, but does show that the photo shows a real object. Foxx when you say it doesn't seem totally solid when blown up - could this be attributable to the core being vertical columns with a covering which has been partially dislodged by the damage of the collapse up to that point. (Dynamite info with the "Where's the fire?" series, by the way. Well in.)
The last couple of clips show the corner sections.
Gordon.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2.plume.wmv
Shows sharp perpendicular vertical edges of remaining core 4secs very clear 7 - 9 secs
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....divx%205.1).avi
Right at beginning see vertical line between standing tower and standing bulding silhouetted to right. Debris can be seen falling down this line indicating a mass above from which it fell. Run back and forward between 2 and 6 seconds watching the area between the expanding dust cloud beneath the standing tower and the silhouetted building. You will see the remains of the core disappearing. This would be obscured from most angles by the expanding cloud but can be seen because of the elevated position.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....tdown.enl.2.mpg
Full sequence of above
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....hopper.slow.wmv
From helicopter shows core but not well
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2...l.slow.core.wmv
From street level - core visible after collapse
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...-2_explodes.avi
Shows corner section
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/--...er_collapse.mpg
As he says “That tower just came down” the nearest corner section is visible in the foreground, and begins to fall as he says “down”
The last couple of clips show the corner sections.
Gordon.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2.plume.wmv
Shows sharp perpendicular vertical edges of remaining core 4secs very clear 7 - 9 secs
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....divx%205.1).avi
Right at beginning see vertical line between standing tower and standing bulding silhouetted to right. Debris can be seen falling down this line indicating a mass above from which it fell. Run back and forward between 2 and 6 seconds watching the area between the expanding dust cloud beneath the standing tower and the silhouetted building. You will see the remains of the core disappearing. This would be obscured from most angles by the expanding cloud but can be seen because of the elevated position.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....tdown.enl.2.mpg
Full sequence of above
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....hopper.slow.wmv
From helicopter shows core but not well
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2...l.slow.core.wmv
From street level - core visible after collapse
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...-2_explodes.avi
Shows corner section
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/--...er_collapse.mpg
As he says “That tower just came down” the nearest corner section is visible in the foreground, and begins to fall as he says “down”
Christophera / Algoxy...
I expect to see shortly a great influx of posters who support the 'concrete core' theory...
We have already heard from 'The Schneibster' and 'The Quack', and we are well aware of their allegances.
Where are your 'supporters' from the 9/11 Truth movement?
You seem to stand alone... except from supporters from the 'official' fairy tale?
I expect to see shortly a great influx of posters who support the 'concrete core' theory...
We have already heard from 'The Schneibster' and 'The Quack', and we are well aware of their allegances.
Where are your 'supporters' from the 9/11 Truth movement?
You seem to stand alone... except from supporters from the 'official' fairy tale?
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 16 2006, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 16 2006, 02:46 AM)
PS: Hey, I wonder if these CTers would 'implode' (hehehe) if there was no-one left for them to call 'Schneibster', 'shill', 'murderer', 'obfuscater' etc. Do you think they'd start turning on themselves just to have something to aim their lunacy at?
RC.
That's exactly what happens.
I've seen it over and over again on other threads and kook sites.
I didn't know this was a kooks site. I thought it was basic physics. Maybe it just attracts kooks...
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 17 2006, 09:08 PM)
The following clips show the remnants of the core of WTC2 standing after progression of the collapse to ground level. Some are easier to see than others, but the distinctive stepped pyramid shape of the top can be identified. This does not give us any more idea whether it had concrete in it, but does show that the photo shows a real object. Foxx when you say it doesn't seem totally solid when blown up - could this be attributable to the core being vertical columns with a covering which has been partially dislodged by the damage of the collapse up to that point. (Dynamite info with the "Where's the fire?" series, by the way. Well in.)
The last couple of clips show the corner sections.
Gordon.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2.plume.wmv
Shows sharp perpendicular vertical edges of remaining core 4secs very clear 7 - 9 secs
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....divx%205.1).avi
Right at beginning see vertical line between standing tower and standing bulding silhouetted to right. Debris can be seen falling down this line indicating a mass above from which it fell. Run back and forward between 2 and 6 seconds watching the area between the expanding dust cloud beneath the standing tower and the silhouetted building. You will see the remains of the core disappearing. This would be obscured from most angles by the expanding cloud but can be seen because of the elevated position.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....tdown.enl.2.mpg
Full sequence of above
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....hopper.slow.wmv
From helicopter shows core but not well
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2...l.slow.core.wmv
From street level - core visible after collapse
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...-2_explodes.avi
Shows corner section
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/--...er_collapse.mpg
As he says “That tower just came down” the nearest corner section is visible in the foreground, and begins to fall as he says “down”
Hi gordon...
To be honest, I don't know what you are alluding to or what you are saying?
Can you be more specific?
From the video clips presented I (personally) see no evidence of a solid object in the dust cloud.
I confess that I am not a photo / video analysis expert by any means, but I just don't see any solid objects in the cloud from the videos presented. ?
The last couple of clips show the corner sections.
Gordon.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2.plume.wmv
Shows sharp perpendicular vertical edges of remaining core 4secs very clear 7 - 9 secs
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....divx%205.1).avi
Right at beginning see vertical line between standing tower and standing bulding silhouetted to right. Debris can be seen falling down this line indicating a mass above from which it fell. Run back and forward between 2 and 6 seconds watching the area between the expanding dust cloud beneath the standing tower and the silhouetted building. You will see the remains of the core disappearing. This would be obscured from most angles by the expanding cloud but can be seen because of the elevated position.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....tdown.enl.2.mpg
Full sequence of above
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10/911.wtc....hopper.slow.wmv
From helicopter shows core but not well
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2...l.slow.core.wmv
From street level - core visible after collapse
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...-2_explodes.avi
Shows corner section
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/--...er_collapse.mpg
As he says “That tower just came down” the nearest corner section is visible in the foreground, and begins to fall as he says “down”
Hi gordon...
To be honest, I don't know what you are alluding to or what you are saying?
Can you be more specific?
From the video clips presented I (personally) see no evidence of a solid object in the dust cloud.
I confess that I am not a photo / video analysis expert by any means, but I just don't see any solid objects in the cloud from the videos presented. ?
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 17 2006, 09:20 PM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 16 2006, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 16 2006, 02:46 AM)
PS: Hey, I wonder if these CTers would 'implode' (hehehe) if there was no-one left for them to call 'Schneibster', 'shill', 'murderer', 'obfuscater' etc. Do you think they'd start turning on themselves just to have something to aim their lunacy at?
RC.
That's exactly what happens.
I've seen it over and over again on other threads and kook sites.
Unlike the official gravity-driven collapse supporters, alternative theory investigators do not come here with pre-conceived fairy tale notions.
Personally, I do not see internal 'meltdowns' happening between anti-governmental story theorists, but rather intellectual pursuits to determine the REAL facts.
The official gov't story supporters wish to present the 'Algoxy / Concrete-Core' theory as representative of CTers belief.
As I have implied / said ... I do NOT consider Christophera to be on the side of truth, but rather a representative on the side of disinformationists... a straw-man plant, that OCT's can utilize to their advantage. This is evident by the 'support' for their 'side' they imply that Algoxy represents.
Ah, what fun the information wars represent.
Interesting that the OCT's have 'stepped aside' leaving the 'Algoxy / Concrete core' theorist to 'prove' an alleged 'point' that CTers will 'implode' if left alone.
I don't support Jayhan, Tannenbaum, or Algoxy. In my opinion they are either misinformed... or disinformationists - and therefore DO NOT represent 'CTers' beliefs.
Nice try.
Let's see if it succeeds.
I don't support Jayhan, Tannenbaum, or Algoxy. In my opinion they are either misinformed... or disinformationists - and therefore DO NOT represent 'CTers' beliefs.
Nice try.
Let's see if it succeeds.
This photo...
shows the massive 12" x 36" massive 'exterior ring' of the central core columns and also shows 'smaller interior core columns' of which some, (although smaller than the 'outer ring' of central core columns) clearly shows interior core columns which are still much larger than 'perimeter wall 14" columns'.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/concrete02.html
shows the massive 12" x 36" massive 'exterior ring' of the central core columns and also shows 'smaller interior core columns' of which some, (although smaller than the 'outer ring' of central core columns) clearly shows interior core columns which are still much larger than 'perimeter wall 14" columns'.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/concrete02.html
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 11:32 AM)
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
You appear to be using the style of common sense/disinformation team with the large fonts.
If you are not on the disinformation team they will learn from this and use plants like you in the future. Your spam is no different then Common Sense/disinformation teams. The OCT falls apart with or without a concrete core and you haven’t added anything constructive that I have read.
QUOTE
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11 |
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Niether thermite or magnesium would burn for the length of time indicated.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Both posts based on pure speculation and could just as easily have been posted by Common Sence.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 01:07 PM)
>Hi!
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I notice that "Commen Sense" has mysteriously morphed back into "Common Sense", RC has vanished, and Christophera is now the bad guy.
Re: concerete core: I've been saying all along that the single photo which allegedly shows a concrete core is bogus evidence, possibly its a shadowy silhouette of the Hilton Hotel (which is a very narrow building), and possibly its been altered a little.
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
>
>I hope you can answer a quick question regarding "Dynamic Finite
>Element Simulation for the Collapse of World Trade Center". Is it true
>your collapse times are 1:53 for the North Tower and 1:32 for the South
>Tower? If so, what do you think are the reasons for the discrepancy in
>actual collapse times of around 15 seconds?
>
>Thanks in advance.
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, China
Phone: +86(10) 6279 5364 (office)
Email:
luxinzheng@263.net
Homepage:
http://www.luxinzheng.net
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I notice that "Commen Sense" has mysteriously morphed back into "Common Sense", RC has vanished, and Christophera is now the bad guy.
Re: concerete core: I've been saying all along that the single photo which allegedly shows a concrete core is bogus evidence, possibly its a shadowy silhouette of the Hilton Hotel (which is a very narrow building), and possibly its been altered a little.
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
As for the alleged documentary showing the concrete core: can christophera provide a reference?
There is a 20 minute doco on the construction of the towers here:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
There is no evidence in this documentary of a concrete core.
(: hereward
There is a 20 minute doco on the construction of the towers here:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
There is no evidence in this documentary of a concrete core.
(: hereward
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2006, 11:24 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 17 2006, 11:32 AM)
It appears you are not comfortable using your own brain and seek the help of others.
You appear to be using the style of common sense/disinformation team with the large fonts.
If you are not on the disinformation team they will learn from this and use plants like you in the future. Your spam is no different then Common Sense/disinformation teams. The OCT falls apart with or without a concrete core and you haven’t added anything constructive that I have read.
QUOTE
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Definitely molten metal, probably aluminum, pouring from that corner. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11 |
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Niether thermite or magnesium would burn for the length of time indicated.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74564
Both post based on pure speculation and could just as easily have been posted by Common Sence.
So you have chosen to try and dance with a
Strawman in discussion,
not weak but insignificant aspect focused on rather than crux of issue. The tower core.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns not seen in photos of the demolition?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 17 2006, 10:19 PM)
This photo...
shows the massive 12" x 36" massive 'exterior ring' of the central core columns and also shows 'smaller interior core columns' of which some, (although smaller than the 'outer ring' of central core columns) clearly shows interior core columns which are still much larger than 'perimeter wall 14" columns'.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/concrete02.html
Still not reading I see.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Oh, ......... you do not use information
No surprise.
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
shows the massive 12" x 36" massive 'exterior ring' of the central core columns and also shows 'smaller interior core columns' of which some, (although smaller than the 'outer ring' of central core columns) clearly shows interior core columns which are still much larger than 'perimeter wall 14" columns'.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/concrete02.html
Still not reading I see.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Oh, ......... you do not use information
No surprise.
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 18 2006, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 01:07 PM)
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I suspect that when Dr. Lu says oil here he is probably referring to jet fuel, it may be a minor issue with translation. I don't have any reason to suspect that this email is not genuine. Whether it provides an explanation for the discrepancy between the computed and observed collapse times is another issue.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 12:34 AM)
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns not seen in photos of the demolition?
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
Well, personally... I find Algoxy/Christophera absolute proof of the extraordinary lengths of lies the disinformation crew will go to in order to disrupt the truth movement.
The 'magical' disappearance of the Schnieby crew (leaving Christophera in its wake) tells me 'they' are in close communication in one way or another.
Based upon some of the statements above made by Algoxy, I have lost my feeling that he MAY be just 'innocently mistaken' in his propaganda campaign, and now believe that 'he' IS an active and deliberate disinformationist.
Bye...algoxy
You have exposed yourself, no need to linger here anymore
The 'magical' disappearance of the Schnieby crew (leaving Christophera in its wake) tells me 'they' are in close communication in one way or another.
Based upon some of the statements above made by Algoxy, I have lost my feeling that he MAY be just 'innocently mistaken' in his propaganda campaign, and now believe that 'he' IS an active and deliberate disinformationist.
Bye...algoxy
You have exposed yourself, no need to linger here anymore
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 18 2006, 12:13 AM)
Re: concerete core: I've been saying all along that the single photo which allegedly shows a concrete core is bogus evidence, possibly its a shadowy silhouette of the Hilton Hotel (which is a very narrow building), and possibly its been altered a little.
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
We don't need that picture, we have others, and you have just joined the AIR CORE because by not supporting the core you believe existed, you indirectly state there was no core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The core wall is the grey area between the stairwell and the interior box column.
We see interior box columns with shear wall behind.
From the side we see the interior box columns forming the spire and the concrete shear wall to the left.
Above, note: where are the 47 steel columns we see one spire identified as something on the outside of the core. Interior box column.
Closer
The core is the brown inside the top piece of WTC 2 as it falls on WTC 3.
There are a number of sites that state similar things about the concrete core. Here's one.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/0...01/engineering/
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).
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
We don't need that picture, we have others, and you have just joined the AIR CORE because by not supporting the core you believe existed, you indirectly state there was no core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The core wall is the grey area between the stairwell and the interior box column.
We see interior box columns with shear wall behind.
From the side we see the interior box columns forming the spire and the concrete shear wall to the left.
Above, note: where are the 47 steel columns we see one spire identified as something on the outside of the core. Interior box column.
Closer
The core is the brown inside the top piece of WTC 2 as it falls on WTC 3.
There are a number of sites that state similar things about the concrete core. Here's one.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/0...01/engineering/
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).
I don't see one shred of evidence for a concrete core in any of those blurry pictures.
And in case you didn't notice, the source you provided makes a proclamation of the steel beams melting at 800 degrees celcius...
And in case you didn't notice, the source you provided makes a proclamation of the steel beams melting at 800 degrees celcius...
QUOTE
by algoxy
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
Elevator guide rails... anyone?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 18 2006, 03:09 AM)
QUOTE
by algoxy
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
The vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails. After the 42nd floor they caught right up to the top of the core and protruded enough over steel floors to be seen. Actually, probably a rare photo, made specially available to the supporters of the lie.
Elevator guide rails... anyone?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
Looks more like a piece of rebar to me...
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 18 2006, 12:13 AM)
Re: concerete core: I've been saying all along that the single photo which allegedly shows a concrete core is bogus evidence, possibly its a shadowy silhouette of the Hilton Hotel (which is a very narrow building), and possibly its been altered a little.
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
We don't need that picture, we have others, and you have just joined the AIR CORE because by not supporting the core you believe existed, you indirectly state there was no core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The core wall is the grey area between the stairwell and the interior box column.
We see interior box columns with shear wall behind.
From the side we see the interior box columns forming the spire and the concrete shear wall to the left.
Above, note: where are the 47 steel columns we see one spire identified as something on the outside of the core. Interior box column.
Closer
The core is the brown inside the top piece of WTC 2 as it falls on WTC 3.
There are a number of sites that state similar things about the concrete core. Here's one.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/0...01/engineering/
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).
No, there was definitely a core, and there may have been concrete infill panels. But concrete infill panels do not equal a concrete core.
To me this issue seems to distract a little from the "core" issues of the collapse.
(: hereward
Using that photo as evidence is, IMHO, as silly as using the blurry undercarriage images to prove the "pods".
(: hereward
We don't need that picture, we have others, and you have just joined the AIR CORE because by not supporting the core you believe existed, you indirectly state there was no core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The core wall is the grey area between the stairwell and the interior box column.
We see interior box columns with shear wall behind.
From the side we see the interior box columns forming the spire and the concrete shear wall to the left.
Above, note: where are the 47 steel columns we see one spire identified as something on the outside of the core. Interior box column.
Closer
The core is the brown inside the top piece of WTC 2 as it falls on WTC 3.
There are a number of sites that state similar things about the concrete core. Here's one.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/0...01/engineering/
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).
No, there was definitely a core, and there may have been concrete infill panels. But concrete infill panels do not equal a concrete core.
To me this issue seems to distract a little from the "core" issues of the collapse.
(: hereward
i SERIOUSLY doubt any concrete wall is 17ft. thick. whoever labelled that picture should think about it. the 'marvel' of the towers was space. 17ft X 2 (assuming symmetry), and possibly by 4 (assuming a concrete box) would take up WAY too much space. if the core is forty ft. across, then there would be a five ft. wide hallway between two really stupidly big walls.
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
Is there a universally agreed upon mass of the towers? I am too lazy to search for it right now.
Concrete weighs several tons per cubic yard. This would be an enormous difference.
Concrete weighs several tons per cubic yard. This would be an enormous difference.
I don't want to weigh in too heavily on the concrete core issue, so to speak, but I wonder if it is possible to do any accounting that would help resolve the issue. I think I have seen figures on the volume of concrete used in the buildings. We should be able to calculate pretty closely how much of that went into the floors. The big question is how much went into the sub-levels, probably quite a bit. Is there any way to estimate that? That estimate probably would only need to be reasonably close. I would guess a concrete core would require a substantial amount of concrete and any shortage, or lack thereof, between how much we know was poured and how much we can account for would presumably show up. Just idling thinking about it to pass the time.
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 18 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 12:34 AM)
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns not seen in photos of the demolition?
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
I do believe the way you've used the word "demolished" that you are distorting, over generalizing, minimizing, what is required to "demolish" the columns you assert existed, trying to create a mental filter.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Are you saying that 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut into 40 foot lengths before our eyes?
How many cuts, how many explosions?
Typical, those supporting the lie only accept information that is not available. The behavior is giving away your intentions.
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
I do believe the way you've used the word "demolished" that you are distorting, over generalizing, minimizing, what is required to "demolish" the columns you assert existed, trying to create a mental filter.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Are you saying that 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut into 40 foot lengths before our eyes?
How many cuts, how many explosions?
Typical, those supporting the lie only accept information that is not available. The behavior is giving away your intentions.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 18 2006, 06:09 AM)
I don't want to weigh in too heavily on the concrete core issue, so to speak, but I wonder if it is possible to do any accounting that would help resolve the issue. I think I have seen figures on the volume of concrete used in the buildings. We should be able to calculate pretty closely how much of that went into the floors. The big question is how much went into the sub-levels, probably quite a bit. Is there any way to estimate that? That estimate probably would only need to be reasonably close. I would guess a concrete core would require a substantial amount of concrete and any shortage, or lack thereof, between how much we know was poured and how much we can account for would presumably show up. Just idling thinking about it to pass the time.
Yes Lon,
That works. I've done it several times and the usage W/floors only comes up short by a good piece. The volume given is for the towers, above ground, not below ground. The floors were 204' x 204' x 5 inches thick ave.
Yes Lon,
That works. I've done it several times and the usage W/floors only comes up short by a good piece. The volume given is for the towers, above ground, not below ground. The floors were 204' x 204' x 5 inches thick ave.
I have a confession. When I first joined the discussion group, I to, assumed a concrete, reinforced core. My early posts reflect this. However, when I began to investigate the elevator system, my ignorance, or more appropriately, my misconception was revealed. I now direct my visualization along the lines of a bare, perhaps fireproofed, steel core sheathed in layers of
industrial rated drywall. Most, if not all, of my subsequent research supports this view.
I see the core fabrication as an independent variable in the system of collapse. It's like the opening moves in a chess game. If you open from the kings side, your strategy should coincide with early right side development. Open from the queen side and you
develop from the left.
Again, for the gallery, I currently think the core was sheathed but I still recall, my arguments from the other side. It's not clear why a concrete core is an automatic, slam dunk, for the "official" account. It just shifts the argument. For every advantage invoked, a corresponding disadvantage arises.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released. If the core was sheathed, the debris pile would have been covered in a snowy, carpet because the lighter, torn-up but not pulverized drywall, falls even slower (air Resistance) and lastly onto the debris pile. Did we see that?
The core, even stripped of its' floors and perimeter support , is still an active structure, bolted into the bedrock. They point to a Smokey picture and say SEE! this explains everything. Then the core aberration, comprised of steel reaching 4" thick at the base and with no vertical load, disappears vertically.
What happened to all that drywall from the interior walls of the core? If the floor collapse raced ahead, what abrasive medium was left behind to pulverize it?
industrial rated drywall. Most, if not all, of my subsequent research supports this view.
I see the core fabrication as an independent variable in the system of collapse. It's like the opening moves in a chess game. If you open from the kings side, your strategy should coincide with early right side development. Open from the queen side and you
develop from the left.
Again, for the gallery, I currently think the core was sheathed but I still recall, my arguments from the other side. It's not clear why a concrete core is an automatic, slam dunk, for the "official" account. It just shifts the argument. For every advantage invoked, a corresponding disadvantage arises.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released. If the core was sheathed, the debris pile would have been covered in a snowy, carpet because the lighter, torn-up but not pulverized drywall, falls even slower (air Resistance) and lastly onto the debris pile. Did we see that?
The core, even stripped of its' floors and perimeter support , is still an active structure, bolted into the bedrock. They point to a Smokey picture and say SEE! this explains everything. Then the core aberration, comprised of steel reaching 4" thick at the base and with no vertical load, disappears vertically.
What happened to all that drywall from the interior walls of the core? If the floor collapse raced ahead, what abrasive medium was left behind to pulverize it?
of course, it's easy to get confused as to who's who in the shadow government shadow puppet play.
that's why it's best to come to your own HONEST conclusions.
there was a lot of heat. more than jet fuel, fires and would provide to cause those collapse times.
you have to ask yourself(if you're not a hypnotized stepford citizen), how could FEMA screw up so badly on their initially published fall times.
really.
how could anyone be so careleSS.
that's why it's best to come to your own HONEST conclusions.
there was a lot of heat. more than jet fuel, fires and would provide to cause those collapse times.
you have to ask yourself(if you're not a hypnotized stepford citizen), how could FEMA screw up so badly on their initially published fall times.
really.
how could anyone be so careleSS.
From this angle it looks like the perimeter wall of the north tower was damaged by the same explosion that removed a large part of WTC6 (it has the same rounded features). Falling debris could not cause both a hole in WTC6 and a half circle in the wall of the north tower. Why didn’t NIST study the progressive explosion of WTC6 ?( first WTC6 then progressing to the north tower):
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wt...thwest_Hell.jpg
The arrow is in the area of the damaged perimeter wall of the tower referred to above.
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wt...thwest_Hell.jpg
The arrow is in the area of the damaged perimeter wall of the tower referred to above.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 06:28 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 18 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 12:34 AM)
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns not seen in photos of the demolition?
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
I do believe the way you've used the word "demolished" that you are distorting, over generalizing, minimizing, what is required to "demolish" the columns you assert existed, trying to create a mental filter.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Are you saying that 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut into 40 foot lengths before our eyes?
How many cuts, how many explosions?
Typical, those supporting the lie only accept information that is not available. The behavior is giving away your intentions.
This will be the last time I respond to you.
PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF A CONCRETE CORE BEING CONSTRUCTED, OR ADMIT THAT YOU ARE FULL OF SH1T
Oh yeah... I see em...
Oh wait... No I don't.
Where the heck am I supposed to see 17' thick concrete walls in these photos? You see 'evidence' in these photos of 17' thick concrete walls !? !!!
Pffftttt.
Perhaps you can help me, by pointing them out with nice colored arrows?
Got any photos of aircraft pods, you'd like to share?
Oh yeah... I see em...
Oh wait... No I don't.
Where the heck am I supposed to see 17' thick concrete walls in these photos? You see 'evidence' in these photos of 17' thick concrete walls !? !!!
Pffftttt.
Perhaps you can help me, by pointing them out with nice colored arrows?
Got any photos of aircraft pods, you'd like to share?
These picture provide evidence for the notion of an AIR core. That would explain the rapid collapse times. Perhaps the popes were right, after all!!
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I suspect that when Dr. Lu says oil here he is probably referring to jet fuel, it may be a minor issue with translation. I don't have any reason to suspect that this email is not genuine. Whether it provides an explanation for the discrepancy between the computed and observed collapse times is another issue.
My guess is either jet fuel and/or heating oil. I've worked in China, and the number of official signs with English "translations" one sees with typos is surprisingly large. Almost shockingly large, at least until you get used to them.
I believe the Chinese have almost as much trouble writing English as we have speaking and understanding Chinese.
OTOH, their mathematics and engineering should be as good as ours.
BTW, their skyscraper architects tend to be very creative, at least judging by the ones I saw in Shanghai. One looked like a rocket ship. Very cool.
Hi metamars, with the massive amounts of spam over the last couple of weeks, I don't blame you for missing the answer to this question, which I posted some time back.
The particular photo in question which 'Christophera' claims is evidence of a concrete core, comes from a series taken by Aman Zafar. His website...
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/ doesn't seem to be operating at the moment.
According to the Internet Archives. The first date that Aman Zafars site was detected was Dec 08, 2002, but the first time the Archives show the series of WTC photos was Feb 14, 2003. The series can be seen here...
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214124155/....no-ip.com/WTC/
Here are the series which show the collapse of the south tower...
1 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211182355/...m/WTC/wtc15.JPG
2 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030709221359/...m/WTC/wtc16.JPG
3 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030520214604/...m/WTC/wtc17.JPG
4 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030930072410/...m/WTC/wtc18.JPG
5 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211202456/...m/WTC/wtc19.JPG
6 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211202337/...m/WTC/wtc20.JPG
As for the concretecore page the first appearance of the algoxy 'Concrete Core' theory on the internet seems to be Oct 12, 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
and the publication of the developed theory on Feb 20, 2005... (about 1 year ago)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
The weld points that connected pre-fabricated sections of perimeter panels were much weaker than the columns themselves as evidenced by all the pre-fabricated pieces that came apart from each other and which didn't appear to undergo any significant plastic deformation. The same can be said for the splice connections of the box columns. It's possible that the perimeter panels bent locally at their welds due to floor sections pulling them inward and fractured at the welds when the bowing became too great. That would be an easier mode of failure compared with buckling of the columns themselves with unlimited plastic deformation as the BZ paper assumes.
The perimeter columns sections were bolted together:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
I would like to know how the core columns were spliced together. I don’t see evidence of steel plates bolted or welded on to the ends of the colomns.
Are you sure these are core colomns? I am refuring to the large core colomns loaded onto trucks without bolt holes at the ends.
I don't if those were part of the core. I've seen columns thicker than the one in the second pic that have 6 bolt holes.
Most likely because they were demolished. That's usually what happens in a demolition.
Try showing some evidence of a concrete core being constructed. If you can't do that, get the fcuk out of here with your nonsense.
I do believe the way you've used the word "demolished" that you are distorting, over generalizing, minimizing, what is required to "demolish" the columns you assert existed, trying to create a mental filter.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Are you saying that 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut into 40 foot lengths before our eyes?
How many cuts, how many explosions?
Typical, those supporting the lie only accept information that is not available. The behavior is giving away your intentions.
This will be the last time I respond to you.
PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF A CONCRETE CORE BEING CONSTRUCTED, OR ADMIT THAT YOU ARE FULL OF SH1T
QUOTE (newton+Mar 18 2006, 03:34 AM)
i SERIOUSLY doubt any concrete wall is 17ft. thick. whoever labelled that picture should think about it. the 'marvel' of the towers was space. 17ft X 2 (assuming symmetry), and possibly by 4 (assuming a concrete box) would take up WAY too much space. if the core is forty ft. across, then there would be a five ft. wide hallway between two really stupidly big walls.
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
I guess the mass spam tactic of CSpam works pretty well. I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick. Buried pages back. I'll post them again.
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
I guess the mass spam tactic of CSpam works pretty well. I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick. Buried pages back. I'll post them again.
QUOTE
posted by algoxy/christophera
I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick.
I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick.
Oh yeah... I see em...
Oh wait... No I don't.
Where the heck am I supposed to see 17' thick concrete walls in these photos? You see 'evidence' in these photos of 17' thick concrete walls !? !!!
Pffftttt.
Perhaps you can help me, by pointing them out with nice colored arrows?
Got any photos of aircraft pods, you'd like to share?
If that photograph shows a concrete core,(the sequence taken from the apartment across the river) then five seconds later, in the next photograph there is clearly nothing there, then where did the concrete core go to?
If it disintegrated into dust, by whatever means, same as all the rest, then we would see a massive secondary cloud of concrete dust.
If it did not disintegrate, but simply broke up into large pieces we would see those pieces on top of the debris pile.
If there is no other possibility other than those two then we must assume that the core was not concrete.
It does not preclude there still being a steel columned core which remains standing after collapse of the perimeter columns and floors, and I believe that it is this which is apparent in the photograph and discernible though not obvious in the video clips,
Gordon
If it disintegrated into dust, by whatever means, same as all the rest, then we would see a massive secondary cloud of concrete dust.
If it did not disintegrate, but simply broke up into large pieces we would see those pieces on top of the debris pile.
If there is no other possibility other than those two then we must assume that the core was not concrete.
It does not preclude there still being a steel columned core which remains standing after collapse of the perimeter columns and floors, and I believe that it is this which is apparent in the photograph and discernible though not obvious in the video clips,
Gordon
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 18 2006, 06:38 AM)
I have a confession. When I first joined the discussion group, I to, assumed a concrete, reinforced core.
You are forgiven, my son!! Go forth, and sin no more!
In the interests of full disclosure, when I first joined this forum, I thought that the official Fairy Tales basically depended only on the idea that the columns were so weakened due to fire, that they had to globally collapse. It's more complicated than that, though Gordon's work makes it clear that global collapse would not have occurred.
I also thought Hufschmid's figures for collapse time were valid, which was one of the things that piqued my interest.
It's not clear why a concrete core is an automatic, slam dunk, for the "official" account. It just shifts the argument. For every advantage invoked, a corresponding disadvantage arises.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.
I don't feel comfortable, in general, speculating about somebody else's motives, and I get the sense that Christophera is sincere. However, a possible reason for photo shopping pictures of a concrete core (by somebody - I'm not accusing Christophera of doing so) might not be simply to create disinformation, in general, but perhaps to attempt to make Gordon's work, specifically, questionable as there are no assumptions of a concrete core. I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon )
Another minor concrete core/photoshop/evidence conspiracy theory is this: a 10 year old kid who is handy with a computer decided to make both the "popes" and us "conspiracy theorists" look silly.
Finally, I'd like to respond to a suggestion, advanced by Christophera in response to my question about how such a critical idea as "concrete core" would not be found in textbooks, which was posted earlier in the thread. Christophera suggested that the books were removed from the market.
I don't have a reference handy, but Mike Ruppert has written about the tricks played by covert ops to prevent the widespread dissemination of certain books. I have also read, previously, of such an idea for some "forbidden" books which did make it into the public arena, in limited numbers, though I don't recall details and don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the information being solid.
My guess is that textbooks such as we are talking about must have made it into the hands, and eventually the private collections, of literally thousands of engineers. There is no way that the CIA, or anybody else, knocked on their doors and demanded the books. Of course, they didn't sneak in and steal the books, either.
It's quite possible that my belief/assumption about the textbooks is wrong. But if not, the idea that they were subsequently cleansed from private owners all over the country, if not the world, is a non-starter.
You are forgiven, my son!! Go forth, and sin no more!
In the interests of full disclosure, when I first joined this forum, I thought that the official Fairy Tales basically depended only on the idea that the columns were so weakened due to fire, that they had to globally collapse. It's more complicated than that, though Gordon's work makes it clear that global collapse would not have occurred.
I also thought Hufschmid's figures for collapse time were valid, which was one of the things that piqued my interest.
QUOTE
It's not clear why a concrete core is an automatic, slam dunk, for the "official" account. It just shifts the argument. For every advantage invoked, a corresponding disadvantage arises.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.
I don't feel comfortable, in general, speculating about somebody else's motives, and I get the sense that Christophera is sincere. However, a possible reason for photo shopping pictures of a concrete core (by somebody - I'm not accusing Christophera of doing so) might not be simply to create disinformation, in general, but perhaps to attempt to make Gordon's work, specifically, questionable as there are no assumptions of a concrete core. I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon
)Another minor concrete core/photoshop/evidence conspiracy theory is this: a 10 year old kid who is handy with a computer decided to make both the "popes" and us "conspiracy theorists" look silly.
Finally, I'd like to respond to a suggestion, advanced by Christophera in response to my question about how such a critical idea as "concrete core" would not be found in textbooks, which was posted earlier in the thread. Christophera suggested that the books were removed from the market.
I don't have a reference handy, but Mike Ruppert has written about the tricks played by covert ops to prevent the widespread dissemination of certain books. I have also read, previously, of such an idea for some "forbidden" books which did make it into the public arena, in limited numbers, though I don't recall details and don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the information being solid.
My guess is that textbooks such as we are talking about must have made it into the hands, and eventually the private collections, of literally thousands of engineers. There is no way that the CIA, or anybody else, knocked on their doors and demanded the books. Of course, they didn't sneak in and steal the books, either.
It's quite possible that my belief/assumption about the textbooks is wrong. But if not, the idea that they were subsequently cleansed from private owners all over the country, if not the world, is a non-starter.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 18 2006, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE
posted by algoxy/christophera
I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick.
I posted pics of the inside of the lobbly where the core walls were that thick.
Oh yeah... I see em...
Oh wait... No I don't.
Where the heck am I supposed to see 17' thick concrete walls in these photos? You see 'evidence' in these photos of 17' thick concrete walls !? !!!
Pffftttt.
Perhaps you can help me, by pointing them out with nice colored arrows?
Got any photos of aircraft pods, you'd like to share?
These picture provide evidence for the notion of an AIR core. That would explain the rapid collapse times. Perhaps the popes were right, after all!!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 17 2006, 05:09 PM)
it was a physical conspiracy.
you see, the lower columns knew that they were going to be crushed by a rapid descent of the upper storeys, and so, in anticipation of this runaway freight train, they counted to ten and JUMPED OUT OF THE WAY, removing all support from the cap, turning it into a runaway freight train.
much like the chicken and the egg. which came first? the falling one storey, or the failure that causes falling? according to BZ, it's the fall that happens first, as the deformation can be IGNORED, according to them. that means, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. and the tilt can be ignored, because it's not 'opto-mystic'.
i realise that buckling can be seen in the seconds before collapse. removing 'one floor's worth' of support columns from the core would cause the rapid buckling on the perimeter. you COULD use explosive's to do this, although there would then be sounds of explosions and fireballs shooting out the side of the building, which are clearly not 'opto-mystic'.
i'm sure the toner cartridges and the copiers were in on it.
DAMN those toner cartridges! I KNEW they couldn't be trusted!!
And the copiers, TOO??!!
I'll never get into a hi-rise with copiers and toner cartridges, again!
you see, the lower columns knew that they were going to be crushed by a rapid descent of the upper storeys, and so, in anticipation of this runaway freight train, they counted to ten and JUMPED OUT OF THE WAY, removing all support from the cap, turning it into a runaway freight train.
much like the chicken and the egg. which came first? the falling one storey, or the failure that causes falling? according to BZ, it's the fall that happens first, as the deformation can be IGNORED, according to them. that means, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. and the tilt can be ignored, because it's not 'opto-mystic'.
i realise that buckling can be seen in the seconds before collapse. removing 'one floor's worth' of support columns from the core would cause the rapid buckling on the perimeter. you COULD use explosive's to do this, although there would then be sounds of explosions and fireballs shooting out the side of the building, which are clearly not 'opto-mystic'.
i'm sure the toner cartridges and the copiers were in on it.
DAMN those toner cartridges! I KNEW they couldn't be trusted!!
And the copiers, TOO??!!
I'll never get into a hi-rise with copiers and toner cartridges, again!
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 18 2006, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 18 2006, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 17 2006, 01:07 PM)
I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.
=================================
Xinzheng Lu (BEng, PhD, MIIFC)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
=================================
If the above is authentic, it suggests a new twist to the Official Theory: flow of oil caused fires in a much larger part of WTC.
Has anyone heard this before? I'm wondering if it has just been invented by CS.
I suspect that when Dr. Lu says oil here he is probably referring to jet fuel, it may be a minor issue with translation. I don't have any reason to suspect that this email is not genuine. Whether it provides an explanation for the discrepancy between the computed and observed collapse times is another issue.
My guess is either jet fuel and/or heating oil. I've worked in China, and the number of official signs with English "translations" one sees with typos is surprisingly large. Almost shockingly large, at least until you get used to them.
I believe the Chinese have almost as much trouble writing English as we have speaking and understanding Chinese.
OTOH, their mathematics and engineering should be as good as ours.
BTW, their skyscraper architects tend to be very creative, at least judging by the ones I saw in Shanghai. One looked like a rocket ship. Very cool.
QUOTE
by metamars
I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon).
I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon).
Hi metamars, with the massive amounts of spam over the last couple of weeks, I don't blame you for missing the answer to this question, which I posted some time back.
The particular photo in question which 'Christophera' claims is evidence of a concrete core, comes from a series taken by Aman Zafar. His website...
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/ doesn't seem to be operating at the moment.
According to the Internet Archives. The first date that Aman Zafars site was detected was Dec 08, 2002, but the first time the Archives show the series of WTC photos was Feb 14, 2003. The series can be seen here...
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214124155/....no-ip.com/WTC/
Here are the series which show the collapse of the south tower...
1 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211182355/...m/WTC/wtc15.JPG
2 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030709221359/...m/WTC/wtc16.JPG
3 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030520214604/...m/WTC/wtc17.JPG
4 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20030930072410/...m/WTC/wtc18.JPG
5 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211202456/...m/WTC/wtc19.JPG
6 -- http://web.archive.org/web/20050211202337/...m/WTC/wtc20.JPG
As for the concretecore page the first appearance of the algoxy 'Concrete Core' theory on the internet seems to be Oct 12, 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
and the publication of the developed theory on Feb 20, 2005... (about 1 year ago)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050220124208/...11scenario.html
Parts of the south core can be seen standing briefly in a still photo and in stills from a video. That doesn't necessarily mean the core was concrete.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 17 2006, 04:03 AM)
The strain energy required to produce the buckling points required that there be a 3% strain, according to BZ. Without it, no buckling points, no moment for the force to act on the connecting bolts, and thus no force and no failure. You need 3% to even approach the bolts.
Gordon.
The east wall of the south tower bowed inward with time. That's an instability that was an observed fact whether or not we believe it started with a 3% axial strain due to compression on the columns. It also could have been initiated by the floors sagging and pulling the wall inward which doesn't require a 3% axial strain to initiate. Either way, an instability started. Also, it occurred on the east wall where the fires were the most prominent and where the floor sections were the maximum length of 60 feet. The bowing didn't start until about 20 minutes after the aircraft impact. It also worsened with time as the fires continued. That indicates a phenomenon that is temperature dependent. A similar thing happened on the south wall of the north tower.
The weld points that connected pre-fabricated sections of perimeter panels were much weaker than the columns themselves as evidenced by all the pre-fabricated pieces that came apart from each other and which didn't appear to undergo any significant plastic deformation. The same can be said for the splice connections of the box columns. It's possible that the perimeter panels bent locally at their welds due to floor sections pulling them inward and fractured at the welds when the bowing became too great. That would be an easier mode of failure compared with buckling of the columns themselves with unlimited plastic deformation as the BZ paper assumes.
BZ summarizes some of the optimistic assumption near the end of the paper:
"The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor. This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility (i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distribution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complicating details (e.g., the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube), etc. If the tower is found to fail under these very optimistic assumptions, it will certainly be found to fail when all the detailed mechanisms are analyzed, especially since there are order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance."
Gordon.
The east wall of the south tower bowed inward with time. That's an instability that was an observed fact whether or not we believe it started with a 3% axial strain due to compression on the columns. It also could have been initiated by the floors sagging and pulling the wall inward which doesn't require a 3% axial strain to initiate. Either way, an instability started. Also, it occurred on the east wall where the fires were the most prominent and where the floor sections were the maximum length of 60 feet. The bowing didn't start until about 20 minutes after the aircraft impact. It also worsened with time as the fires continued. That indicates a phenomenon that is temperature dependent. A similar thing happened on the south wall of the north tower.
The weld points that connected pre-fabricated sections of perimeter panels were much weaker than the columns themselves as evidenced by all the pre-fabricated pieces that came apart from each other and which didn't appear to undergo any significant plastic deformation. The same can be said for the splice connections of the box columns. It's possible that the perimeter panels bent locally at their welds due to floor sections pulling them inward and fractured at the welds when the bowing became too great. That would be an easier mode of failure compared with buckling of the columns themselves with unlimited plastic deformation as the BZ paper assumes.
BZ summarizes some of the optimistic assumption near the end of the paper:
"The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor. This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility (i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distribution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complicating details (e.g., the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube), etc. If the tower is found to fail under these very optimistic assumptions, it will certainly be found to fail when all the detailed mechanisms are analyzed, especially since there are order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance."
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 18 2006, 10:39 AM)
The weld points that connected pre-fabricated sections of perimeter panels were much weaker than the columns themselves as evidenced by all the pre-fabricated pieces that came apart from each other and which didn't appear to undergo any significant plastic deformation. The same can be said for the splice connections of the box columns. It's possible that the perimeter panels bent locally at their welds due to floor sections pulling them inward and fractured at the welds when the bowing became too great. That would be an easier mode of failure compared with buckling of the columns themselves with unlimited plastic deformation as the BZ paper assumes.
The perimeter columns sections were bolted together:
QUOTE
As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
I would like to know how the core columns were spliced together. I don’t see evidence of steel plates bolted or welded on to the ends of the colomns.
Core columns were bolted together with 4 or 6 bolts. Some had welds if they were used in critical areas.
The bolts and welds were weak points. A string of connected massive box columns, for example, isn't going to bend to the point of fracture of the column itself without the bolts breaking before that happens. The large number of pieces of free perimeter panels and single-piece columns seen in the debris is evidence of the weakness of the bolts and welds.
The bolts and welds were weak points. A string of connected massive box columns, for example, isn't going to bend to the point of fracture of the column itself without the bolts breaking before that happens. The large number of pieces of free perimeter panels and single-piece columns seen in the debris is evidence of the weakness of the bolts and welds.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 18 2006, 11:10 AM)
Core columns were bolted together with 4 or 6 bolts. Some had welds if they were used in critical areas.
Do you have a reference? I have read references to the core columns being welded together. The photos don’t show this.
Do you have a reference? I have read references to the core columns being welded together. The photos don’t show this.
It's seen in the debris. Note the holes in the end of the columns. There's also an opening in the side to access the bolts.
There are plenty of individual columns in the debris with empty bolt holes. That previous pic shows empty holes plus a hole that fractured. It shouldn't come as a surprise that most of the core columns broke into individual columns during the collapse. A few other columns are seen with the bolts still in holes but with the bolts bent or fractured.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 18 2006, 11:18 AM)
It's seen in the debris. Note the holes in the end of the columns. There's also an opening in the side to access the bolts.
Are you sure these are core colomns? I am refuring to the large core colomns loaded onto trucks without bolt holes at the ends.
Are you sure these are core colomns? I am refuring to the large core colomns loaded onto trucks without bolt holes at the ends.
Well done, shaqster. In consecutive posts you have destroyed your own argument. The last two photos of the three that you posted do not show the core. They show disassociated corner sections. Superimpose if you like - two corner sections from adjacent corners. How would it be possible for buckling to move around the tower from one face to the next without these corner columns also suffering that same buckling?
Notice on all of the videos that at the beginning of the collapse, none of the ejecta issues from areas in the region of the corners. It issues from all of the faces except close to the corners. If this were simply air expelling dust it would also occur through the windows and openings on the chamfered corner faces.
Perhaps you would like to re-assess your theory to explain these corner sections which remain standing for several seconds after collapse has progressed past their position?
How would it be possible for the walls to become disassociated from the corner columns?
How would you explain the expelled air which seems to have an aversion for these same corner area?
Gordon.
Notice on all of the videos that at the beginning of the collapse, none of the ejecta issues from areas in the region of the corners. It issues from all of the faces except close to the corners. If this were simply air expelling dust it would also occur through the windows and openings on the chamfered corner faces.
Perhaps you would like to re-assess your theory to explain these corner sections which remain standing for several seconds after collapse has progressed past their position?
How would it be possible for the walls to become disassociated from the corner columns?
How would you explain the expelled air which seems to have an aversion for these same corner area?
Gordon.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 18 2006, 07:31 PM)
Are you sure these are core colomns? I am refuring to the large core colomns loaded onto trucks without bolt holes at the ends.
I don't if those were part of the core. I've seen columns thicker than the one in the second pic that have 6 bolt holes.
Here are two of the massive ones. It looks like there is a groove on the top one at the far end. The lower one has a lip on it in the foreground. I don't know the nature of the splice on the ones that were this large. Any type of splice on columns this massive is going to be weak relative to the column itself. Note how undeformed those columns are.
It's also worth noting the lack of fire insulation on all of the columns and other pieces in the rubble. They're all bare. On some columns you can see what looks like a trace of whitish color which is probably remant of the insulation.
It's also worth noting the lack of fire insulation on all of the columns and other pieces in the rubble. They're all bare. On some columns you can see what looks like a trace of whitish color which is probably remant of the insulation.
Re; Concerning the archival photo's posted by Foxx from the Aman Zafars site.
Has anyone considered that the boat(s) moving from left to right in the foreground, could be used as a crude, registration and/or timing device. If the "still standing" core, appeared with-in an short interval, you would expect the position and wake lengths, to roughly reflect that. I don't see a linear correspondence in the progression of the crafts as referenced against the progression of the dust cloud. In fact I see different boats. Yes, the zooming does complicate the issue. But still, unless the photo-shoppers were really sophisticated, this might be a detail of the forgery, they didn't consider, IF, indeed, there was a forgery. I welcome those with better eyes than mine, and that's just about anyone, to weigh in on this.
Has anyone considered that the boat(s) moving from left to right in the foreground, could be used as a crude, registration and/or timing device. If the "still standing" core, appeared with-in an short interval, you would expect the position and wake lengths, to roughly reflect that. I don't see a linear correspondence in the progression of the crafts as referenced against the progression of the dust cloud. In fact I see different boats. Yes, the zooming does complicate the issue. But still, unless the photo-shoppers were really sophisticated, this might be a detail of the forgery, they didn't consider, IF, indeed, there was a forgery. I welcome those with better eyes than mine, and that's just about anyone, to weigh in on this.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 18 2006, 08:03 PM)
Re; Concerning the archival photo's posted by Foxx from the Aman Zafars site.
Has anyone considered that the boat(s) moving from left to right in the foreground, could be used as a crude, registration and/or timing device. If the "still standing" core, appeared with-in an short interval, you would expect the position and wake lengths, to roughly reflect that. I don't see a linear correspondence in the progression of the crafts as referenced against the progression of the dust cloud. In fact I see different boats. Yes, the zooming does complicate the issue. But still, unless the photo-shoppers were really sophisticated, this might be a detail of the forgery, they didn't consider, IF, indeed, there was a forgery. I welcome those with better eyes than mine, and that's just about anyone, to weigh in on this.
The boats moved one or two boat-lengths between the two pics below. Maybe a few seconds passed. That seems too short for a thick dust cloud to dissipate. It looks more like a structure was there and collapsed, although I could be wrong. The cloud on the ground doesn't change much from pic to pic either.
There appears to be a similar structure in the second pic, although it is much shorter. See arrow.
Has anyone considered that the boat(s) moving from left to right in the foreground, could be used as a crude, registration and/or timing device. If the "still standing" core, appeared with-in an short interval, you would expect the position and wake lengths, to roughly reflect that. I don't see a linear correspondence in the progression of the crafts as referenced against the progression of the dust cloud. In fact I see different boats. Yes, the zooming does complicate the issue. But still, unless the photo-shoppers were really sophisticated, this might be a detail of the forgery, they didn't consider, IF, indeed, there was a forgery. I welcome those with better eyes than mine, and that's just about anyone, to weigh in on this.
The boats moved one or two boat-lengths between the two pics below. Maybe a few seconds passed. That seems too short for a thick dust cloud to dissipate. It looks more like a structure was there and collapsed, although I could be wrong. The cloud on the ground doesn't change much from pic to pic either.
There appears to be a similar structure in the second pic, although it is much shorter. See arrow.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 18 2006, 07:32 PM)
Well done, shaqster. In consecutive posts you have destroyed your own argument. The last two photos of the three that you posted do not show the core. They show disassociated corner sections. Superimpose if you like - two corner sections from adjacent corners. How would it be possible for buckling to move around the tower from one face to the next without these corner columns also suffering that same buckling?
Notice on all of the videos that at the beginning of the collapse, none of the ejecta issues from areas in the region of the corners. It issues from all of the faces except close to the corners. If this were simply air expelling dust it would also occur through the windows and openings on the chamfered corner faces.
Perhaps you would like to re-assess your theory to explain these corner sections which remain standing for several seconds after collapse has progressed past their position?
How would it be possible for the walls to become disassociated from the corner columns?
How would you explain the expelled air which seems to have an aversion for these same corner area?
Gordon.
The last two of the photos with the spire feature don't match up with the corner of the outer facade. They are near the position of the center of WTC7 in the foreground which isn't near the corner of the perimeter wall. Also, they don't appear like perimeter columns which would be spaced much closer and would be thinner.
Some of the perimeter corner does appear to stand briefly near the start of collapse after the collapse front has progressed a few floors. That doesn't seem unusual as the corner would have likely had a little more rigidity compared with flat sections of wall.
There are other features seen during the collapse that appear to be parts of the outer facade falling, although those are not the ones I posted in the pics from the ABC video.
The chamfered corners didn't have windows as far as I know, so dust would not expected to be expelled there as a result of pressure buildup. Since some parts of the corners managed to survive being crushed briefly, they wouldn't be expected to expel dust initially since insulation on the columns and drywall on that particular area wasn't crushed.
Notice on all of the videos that at the beginning of the collapse, none of the ejecta issues from areas in the region of the corners. It issues from all of the faces except close to the corners. If this were simply air expelling dust it would also occur through the windows and openings on the chamfered corner faces.
Perhaps you would like to re-assess your theory to explain these corner sections which remain standing for several seconds after collapse has progressed past their position?
How would it be possible for the walls to become disassociated from the corner columns?
How would you explain the expelled air which seems to have an aversion for these same corner area?
Gordon.
The last two of the photos with the spire feature don't match up with the corner of the outer facade. They are near the position of the center of WTC7 in the foreground which isn't near the corner of the perimeter wall. Also, they don't appear like perimeter columns which would be spaced much closer and would be thinner.
Some of the perimeter corner does appear to stand briefly near the start of collapse after the collapse front has progressed a few floors. That doesn't seem unusual as the corner would have likely had a little more rigidity compared with flat sections of wall.
There are other features seen during the collapse that appear to be parts of the outer facade falling, although those are not the ones I posted in the pics from the ABC video.
The chamfered corners didn't have windows as far as I know, so dust would not expected to be expelled there as a result of pressure buildup. Since some parts of the corners managed to survive being crushed briefly, they wouldn't be expected to expel dust initially since insulation on the columns and drywall on that particular area wasn't crushed.
Here's a couple more of the sunrise pics. In the first one the tv tower can be seen, so this would be 1978 or later. This pic appeared in the documentary done by TLC. I don't know who took the original photo.
Bolts being inserted for a perimeter column splice.
Bolts that bent and broke in a 6-hole splice.
Bolts that bent and broke in a 6-hole splice.
This looks like a core box column that transitioned from box to a wide flange. Someone posted a floorplan here a while back for the 83 floor which showed such a transition. The pic shows the welds failed before the box had a chance to deform. I think this pic was from one of the NIST or FEMA reports but I don't remember which.
That type of connection doesn't give me much faith in strength of splices. It looks like nothing but a wide-flange that was rest on a box column and fillet welded.
Note once again the lack of fire insulation. Whatever was there got jolted loose.
That type of connection doesn't give me much faith in strength of splices. It looks like nothing but a wide-flange that was rest on a box column and fillet welded.
Note once again the lack of fire insulation. Whatever was there got jolted loose.
Here's a link to a video I received from a new member.
Demolition of Landmark Tower (march 18, 2006)... Notice the 'pre-drop' flashes (transformers exploding) and the vertical drop...(although not quite as perfect as WTC 7...
Thanks 'stinky'...
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/arc...ion1/index.html
Demolition of Landmark Tower (march 18, 2006)... Notice the 'pre-drop' flashes (transformers exploding
) and the vertical drop...(although not quite as perfect as WTC 7... Thanks 'stinky'...
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/arc...ion1/index.html
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 18 2006, 06:38 AM)
It's not clear why a concrete core is an automatic, slam dunk, for the "official" account. It just shifts the argument. For every advantage invoked, a corresponding disadvantage arises.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.
zoktoberfest, good issues, allow me to try and clarify a few things from my perspective. Foxx is intentionally clouding things, this bodes badly for sincerity score. It may not be intentional. The impasse is simply one where I fairly demand that if I have to produce proof of concrete, they must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area, or at the very least explain WHY the steel is totally unseen in all photos. The overhead helicopter photos clearly show much smaller steel in the core. I know that is elevator guide rail. The elevators were critical to the contractors building the towers and were mentioned in a part of the contracts, lowering the cost. Consider that all the heavy steel columns shown in photos, in situ, identifiable, are tapered. Tapered box steel will not work inside a core with elevators. You need the room at the base.
The “lingering core” notion has been invented to cloud facts; example, as if the use of raw evidence, consistent with other evidence, cnosistent with concrete as a historically prominant building material, consistent with statements of engineers and architects. people etc. interested and uninterested, as shown on their we sites, is somehow a strawman that can be instantly eliminated and by which, everybodys efforts are easily compromised by the presentation of the concrete core. Those using this tactic are working to awaken fears. To hopefully influence those reading to do so from a fearful position and focus on what ever they deem fearful rather than the fact that there is huge evidence for the concrete core and virtually no raw evidence for the multiple steel core columns.
your statement,
“ What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.”
is very well phrased and expresses something I’ve sensed needed to be said for people who have a lot less experience with the physical behaviors of these various materials than I do or yourself. Meaning that if the 47, 1,300 foot multiple steel core columns existed they would be seen in photos.
Perhaps you can relate to this when it comes to cutting them if they were there. I have experience with high explosives and know that cutting steel with explosions is very difficult, very dangerous, very distinctive, and takes huge amounts of explosives or very special shaped charges with very exacting installation requirements to be effective. Hence, not one AIR CORE promoter has ever made a decent explanation for why the steel core columns are not seen, in doing this they promote, “no core”.
I don't feel comfortable, in general, speculating about somebody else's motives, and I get the sense that Christophera is sincere. However, a possible reason for photo shopping pictures of a concrete core (by somebody - I'm not accusing Christophera of doing so) might not be simply to create disinformation, in general, but perhaps to attempt to make Gordon's work, specifically, questionable as there are no assumptions of a concrete core. I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon )
Another minor concrete core/photoshop/evidence conspiracy theory is this: a 10 year old kid who is handy with a computer decided to make both the "popes" and us "conspiracy theorists" look silly.
I authored these sites, the concrete core site was made 3 months ago.
http://concretecore.741.com/
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Finally, I'd like to respond to a suggestion, advanced by Christophera in response to my question about how such a critical idea as "concrete core" would not be found in textbooks, which was posted earlier in the thread. Christophera suggested that the books were removed from the market.
I don't have a reference handy, but Mike Ruppert has written about the tricks played by covert ops to prevent the widespread dissemination of certain books. I have also read, previously, of such an idea for some "forbidden" books which did make it into the public arena, in limited numbers, though I don't recall details and don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the information being solid.
My guess is that textbooks such as we are talking about must have made it into the hands, and eventually the private collections, of literally thousands of engineers. There is no way that the CIA, or anybody else, knocked on their doors and demanded the books. Of course, they didn't sneak in and steal the books, either.
It's quite possible that my belief/assumption about the textbooks is wrong. But if not, the idea that they were subsequently cleansed from private owners all over the country, if not the world, is a non-starter.
Good Post! I can tell by where you went in addressing the core, the web site, the missing text books and literature that YOU are not a disinfo. Just want the “disinfos” to know that I can tell the difference, when its made obvious, as your post does, THX. I try to make most of mine have a similar quality that I think you’ve detected, and mentioned. Thank you, this is the same in acknowledgement so that the readers know we’ve found limited acceptance of each others sincerity.
Let me note for them, something to watch for in the future:
What metamars has done with his post is something a disinfo would never do. Try to help a group to work together, through differences, towards agreement.
The missing book issue is powerful reminder of what power can do over time. Rupert is right on. I’ve spoken with him on the phone. He has limited authority and but great knowledge to expose, meaning he knows about the books and other knowledge but won’t talk about why for his own reasons. I’m just glad he’s doing what he’s doing, but I tell you now, it’s no where near the bottom line.
Yes the engineers had/have the books, but 35 years and memory, wow. They would need the concrete core issue to hit the big time to even make them look for the books, let alone the fear issue. There is no doubt from personal experiences with P.E.s that they are afraid to come out and publically support the concrete core they know very well existed. With regard to memory, I’ve spoken personally with men who walked the steel in both towers, they don’t remember much at all, and admit it. Consider the same period of time applied to the simple ownership and location of a book. This is why the AIR CORE crowd is doing what they are doing, to prevent a public inquiry into its actaul possesion of books. Personaly I know a number of people have a copy of the 1990 PBS documentary “The Construction Of the Twin Towers”.
If I didn’t know about steel and concrete when I saw the documentary in 1990, I’m certain I wouldn’t have recalled in 2,002 as well as I have what I learned from the 2 hour show.
Back to the towers:
Gordons work is very solid and am only frustrated that he doesn’t have enough reason to fully realize that the core was concrete. Perhaps Lon Waters suggestion of calculating volumes of concrete will help. The only difficulty is estimating the amount of SAND & GRAVEL at ground zero. Perhaps the image linked will help.
I agree with Foxx that Cristophera is not advancing the discussion. I'm not sure if he's an, out and out, dis-informationalist but he has definitely reach a personal impasse which he now imposes on the rest of us. It would be so easy to photo- shop that "still standing core" image.
The reason why the "officials" like the lingering, concrete core, is because it's indicative of a progressive floor collapse. What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.
zoktoberfest, good issues, allow me to try and clarify a few things from my perspective. Foxx is intentionally clouding things, this bodes badly for sincerity score. It may not be intentional. The impasse is simply one where I fairly demand that if I have to produce proof of concrete, they must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area, or at the very least explain WHY the steel is totally unseen in all photos. The overhead helicopter photos clearly show much smaller steel in the core. I know that is elevator guide rail. The elevators were critical to the contractors building the towers and were mentioned in a part of the contracts, lowering the cost. Consider that all the heavy steel columns shown in photos, in situ, identifiable, are tapered. Tapered box steel will not work inside a core with elevators. You need the room at the base.
The “lingering core” notion has been invented to cloud facts; example, as if the use of raw evidence, consistent with other evidence, cnosistent with concrete as a historically prominant building material, consistent with statements of engineers and architects. people etc. interested and uninterested, as shown on their we sites, is somehow a strawman that can be instantly eliminated and by which, everybodys efforts are easily compromised by the presentation of the concrete core. Those using this tactic are working to awaken fears. To hopefully influence those reading to do so from a fearful position and focus on what ever they deem fearful rather than the fact that there is huge evidence for the concrete core and virtually no raw evidence for the multiple steel core columns.
your statement,
“ What isn't explained, is why a still, vertically aligned, reinforced core structure, no longer has any lateral support and acts like a upright bundle of sticks, suddenly released.”
is very well phrased and expresses something I’ve sensed needed to be said for people who have a lot less experience with the physical behaviors of these various materials than I do or yourself. Meaning that if the 47, 1,300 foot multiple steel core columns existed they would be seen in photos.
Perhaps you can relate to this when it comes to cutting them if they were there. I have experience with high explosives and know that cutting steel with explosions is very difficult, very dangerous, very distinctive, and takes huge amounts of explosives or very special shaped charges with very exacting installation requirements to be effective. Hence, not one AIR CORE promoter has ever made a decent explanation for why the steel core columns are not seen, in doing this they promote, “no core”.
QUOTE (metamars+)
I don't feel comfortable, in general, speculating about somebody else's motives, and I get the sense that Christophera is sincere. However, a possible reason for photo shopping pictures of a concrete core (by somebody - I'm not accusing Christophera of doing so) might not be simply to create disinformation, in general, but perhaps to attempt to make Gordon's work, specifically, questionable as there are no assumptions of a concrete core. I wonder when the concretecore web site went up: BG or AG (before Gordon, or after Gordon
)Another minor concrete core/photoshop/evidence conspiracy theory is this: a 10 year old kid who is handy with a computer decided to make both the "popes" and us "conspiracy theorists" look silly.
I authored these sites, the concrete core site was made 3 months ago.
http://concretecore.741.com/
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
QUOTE (metamars+)
Finally, I'd like to respond to a suggestion, advanced by Christophera in response to my question about how such a critical idea as "concrete core" would not be found in textbooks, which was posted earlier in the thread. Christophera suggested that the books were removed from the market.
I don't have a reference handy, but Mike Ruppert has written about the tricks played by covert ops to prevent the widespread dissemination of certain books. I have also read, previously, of such an idea for some "forbidden" books which did make it into the public arena, in limited numbers, though I don't recall details and don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the information being solid.
My guess is that textbooks such as we are talking about must have made it into the hands, and eventually the private collections, of literally thousands of engineers. There is no way that the CIA, or anybody else, knocked on their doors and demanded the books. Of course, they didn't sneak in and steal the books, either.
It's quite possible that my belief/assumption about the textbooks is wrong. But if not, the idea that they were subsequently cleansed from private owners all over the country, if not the world, is a non-starter.
Good Post! I can tell by where you went in addressing the core, the web site, the missing text books and literature that YOU are not a disinfo. Just want the “disinfos” to know that I can tell the difference, when its made obvious, as your post does, THX. I try to make most of mine have a similar quality that I think you’ve detected, and mentioned. Thank you, this is the same in acknowledgement so that the readers know we’ve found limited acceptance of each others sincerity.
Let me note for them, something to watch for in the future:
What metamars has done with his post is something a disinfo would never do. Try to help a group to work together, through differences, towards agreement.
The missing book issue is powerful reminder of what power can do over time. Rupert is right on. I’ve spoken with him on the phone. He has limited authority and but great knowledge to expose, meaning he knows about the books and other knowledge but won’t talk about why for his own reasons. I’m just glad he’s doing what he’s doing, but I tell you now, it’s no where near the bottom line.
Yes the engineers had/have the books, but 35 years and memory, wow. They would need the concrete core issue to hit the big time to even make them look for the books, let alone the fear issue. There is no doubt from personal experiences with P.E.s that they are afraid to come out and publically support the concrete core they know very well existed. With regard to memory, I’ve spoken personally with men who walked the steel in both towers, they don’t remember much at all, and admit it. Consider the same period of time applied to the simple ownership and location of a book. This is why the AIR CORE crowd is doing what they are doing, to prevent a public inquiry into its actaul possesion of books. Personaly I know a number of people have a copy of the 1990 PBS documentary “The Construction Of the Twin Towers”.
If I didn’t know about steel and concrete when I saw the documentary in 1990, I’m certain I wouldn’t have recalled in 2,002 as well as I have what I learned from the 2 hour show.
Back to the towers:
Gordons work is very solid and am only frustrated that he doesn’t have enough reason to fully realize that the core was concrete. Perhaps Lon Waters suggestion of calculating volumes of concrete will help. The only difficulty is estimating the amount of SAND & GRAVEL at ground zero. Perhaps the image linked will help.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.