Yea, show everyone all of your fake, inapplicable inventions, misrepresentations, facsimiles and photoshop constructs.
Chris, is this what you propose existed in the core starting at the ground level? The red portion being the base of your reinforced concrete core walls?
Just to refresh your memory when looking at the picture above, here is an image YOU had drawn up with the dimensions of your core. You said the short concrete core walls were 17' thick and the long walls were 12' thick.
So explain to the audience Chris, how in the world did they fit: 1. 23 express passenger elevators, 11 along the inside of one of the long walls and 12 along the the inside of the other 2. 24 local elevators 3. 3 freight elevators 4. 3 stairwells 5. AC, pipe, cabling shafts 6. An access hallway to REACH the local elevators on the inside of your supposed core All within the nice, neat, compact interior of your supposed core, with the dimensions of 80' x 120'?
You do not realise that free fall was only noted for a small section for a very short time. Perhaps a sub-assembly broke off and fell. My point being that just one example of a possibility throws the whole free fall = CD meme out the window. No, it was ridiculous and a waste of time. Absolute rubbish. Ridiculous. I think you need to revise the NIST's report.
Gummy, you were supposed to show your evidence. What's up? Got no evidence? Here is evidence supporting the dimensions I calculate above. The column on the left is OUTSIDE the concrete core.
Your list of questions do not amount to evidence. Of course you have none that does not come from official sources that are corrupt. The complete lack of REAL plans etc is because Guilani illegally took them from the NYC dept of buildings. Here is a letter from the NYCLU complaining of that fact to Bloomberg. http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html I have one question to answer all of your questions. How did all of those elevator doors and hallway doors exist with the maze of diagonal bracing and gusset plates that would exist with the steel framed core? IF THE STEEL FRAMED CORE EXISTED, which it did not.
Whatever, if you can't look up the pdf for the pics that's your problem. Please demonstrate. Ridiculous. 'Near free fall' is absurd as a meme. There is plenty of evidence for heat damaged steel, it's that you refuse to look at it. Your argument is invalid from the outset if you think the buildings had concrete cores. Clearly, you do not know the subject as well as you'd like to think.
Small section???? It was 8 floors of WTC7 which all fell at free fall rate with no separation!!! Even the final NIST report acknowledges that Still waiting for you to explain why the draft report of the collapse of WTC 7 made no mention of any part of WTC7 falling at free fall rate (post 55). Are you scared to address that? Here is the draft report again, just for you : http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909254 To make it easier for you as you say that you haven't got the time, page 41. Now here is the final report, http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610. Oh look, p46 suddenly shows free fall. Quite obvious that you lack some understanding of physics.
Not eight eight entire floors. It was only a section. Show me where it was eight entire floors and not a sub assembly, ad I may consider your point. Also, show me where you have disproved the gif as supplied by the NIST. Your ridicule was not an adequate response. I don't have to explain anything. You have the burden of proof. Personally, I no longer care about truther demands, as I don't have the burden. I'll think you'll find it in the appendices originally, and then it was moved, but I can't be bothered confirming that as it isn't all that important. The free fall meme is inconsequential. And there it is, how predictable. Of course, all the professionals and academics are wrong, and you're right.
The NIST on 'free fall': "This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below... http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm It's inconsequential in the collapse sequence. There is a very discussion on ISF detailing the process: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261007 Free fall =/= CD Let's see if the house physicist understands this gif. 9/11 truth always bleats on about free fall, but as soon as one mentions that free fall was exceeded to 1.2g, everyone runs away, because it is 'uncomfortable' in the truther narrative. What caused a section to exceed g?
It's in the actual video that NIST used to measure the collapse. The mid point pixel stayed attached to the complete 18 floor structure as it descended below the roof line of the building in front of WTC7 (free fall over the height of 8 floors).
As soon as you post a graph titled WTC7 - NW Corner shows how out of date you are. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video Now back to the NIST reports. So in the draft version for public comment, NIST go out of their way to state that freefall did not happen, to, in the final version, acknowledge that freefall did happen but whitewash it. It's quite funny that you think that linking to different forums somehow backs your argument! You also don't seem to realise that this 1.2g is from fitting a polynomial to measurements. No actual measurements data gave acceleration greater than g within measurement errors. Also note the gradient of the regression line, v(t)=-44.773+32.196t, which also corresponds to the steepest fit to the actual data that was measured. Does the 32.196 ring a bell?
NIST and/or NIST's spokesman (Sunder) contradicted itself/himself many times during and after the "investigation" (paraphrasing in some cases): "We've had trouble getting a handle on building no. 7". "The obvious stares you in the face". Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders. free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)" "the fires in WTC7 are similar to fires in other tall buildings, albeit uncontrolled". "The fires caused an extraordinary event". etc., etc.
That's the 2" thick gypsum planking Chris. Just like what we see on the OTHER side of the remaining structure shown in your photo above. Here is a partial plan showing what we are looking at in my photo above. 7' x 3' access hallway in the "concrete wall"...
Laughing while concealing secret methods of mass murder is a very dark thing. The title block on your "partial plan" is free hand pencil. Obsolete preliminary plans by Robertson of an original design rejected by Yamasaki. Silverstein scanned them, faked them, got them to Steven Jones B.Y.U., who gave them to Avery who gave them to Hoffman of wtc7.net Gage's buddy. http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html The revision tables are photoshopped onto the scans of obsolete blueprints to make them appear as final drawings. A close up of the non alpha characters, obvious pixel assemblies in the cells of the revision tables. The vertical steel on the left is elevator guide rail support steel that was inside the concrete core area and the steel on the right is a interior box column outside the concrete core. Behind them is a remainder of the concrete core which did not get pulverized preserving the gypsum and stairwell. The horizontal member connecting was cast into the concrete which was pulverized by explosives. The interior box column on the right has concrete stains in it from being encapsulated in the base wall as the interior box column on the left is here, outside the core, below the hallway indicated above and right of it. Misrepresentations not supported by other evidence are easily exposed and of course, your misrepresentations explain nothing. 1). Numerous photos or video of the concrete in the core area on 9/11 that also show a core area which is empty proving there were no steel core columns. A steel framed structural core would be a very obvious feature in such an event and it is never seen. It did not exist. The core was a rectangular cast concrete tube cast in place surrounded by the steel exoskeleton which supported the concrete forms. 2). http://algoxy.com/psych/newsweek.robertson.html The 2001 Newsweek article featuring statements of Leslie E. Robertson, the architect of the Twin Towers, 3 days after 9/11 regarding a steel reinforced cast concrete core. Original article now altered. 3). http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel-www.ncsea.down.pdf The 2001 safety report for FEMA by August Domel identifying a concrete core. Domel is certified in 12 states as a structural engineer. 4). http://algoxy.com/conc/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg The oxford encyclopedia of technology and innovation statement of 1992 identifying a concrete core. 5). NIST, the organization officially charged with an analysis of the structural event DID NOT HAVE PLANS for the towers, http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html Guiliani took them in December of 2001 This was done so when a group that agreed to attempt analysis based on anecdotal evidence of structural design was assembled, it could be said, "this was because there were no plans" because the "only" set was in the Towers. NIST was deceived there, an obstruction of justice. Done with your dark lies and weak sh*t.
Blah, blah, blah... All made up stories by you over the years Chris. It's quite funny looking at the history of your fantasy as it evolved and changed. You keep changing it whenever someone proves you wrong. Remember you used to claim that NO ELEVATORS were accessible from outside the core because of your supposed concrete core? That every elevator was accessible from INSIDE the core only? Then I found pictures of the lobby of the towers which showed people walking into the express elevators from outside the core? What did you do then Chris? You then came up with the bright idea to say that EVERY picture that showed elevator access from OUTSIDE the core was from one tower only. That the other tower was constructed differently because of "lessons learned" from the first tower. What a joke! Tell the folks the differences you think existed between the towers Chris. Tell them about your "concrete pedestal" behind the express elevators that you tried to envision AFTER you were shown the elevator access from OUTSIDE the core from the lobby.
Chris, Here's your picture of WTC1 from your site: Here is the your picture of WTC2, added later after you were explained the problem of your concrete core walls BLOCKING express elevator access from the lobby: This is proof you made up the WTC2 "concrete pedestal and elevator location, the towers were vastly different" crap AFTER the problem above was pointed out to you. Here's a link to your site from 2007 using the Wayback archive site. https://web.archive.org/web/20070302112939/http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html No WTC2/concrete pedestal diagram there huh? I wonder why?
Hmmmm... Interesting... So in MY photo, you say the left column is elevator guide rail support steel that was INSIDE the concrete core. Then in YOUR photo, which was taken from the other side of MY photo, you now say that the same column, in line with the one mentioned above, was encapsulated in the concrete. How can they first be encapsulated in concrete in one photo and then inside the concrete core walls in another? See, this is what happens when you tell a bunch of lies and make stuff up on the go. You get caught in mistakes.
No, it is still relevant. And? OK, from the center of the North Face if you like [citation required] it matters not, and I don't care. It was merely recorded for 2.25 seconds, 12.5 seconds into the collapse sequence, therefore it is insignificant. LOLOL , free fall only occurred for 2.25 seconds, 12.5 seconds into the collapse sequence. That is insignificant. When the answers are provided by engineers, yes. What an odd response. *SIGH* Revise the graph supplied for greater comprehension. How do you account for collapse exceeding g? Free fall =/= CD.
A fire induced natural collapse cannot cause a steel frame high rise building to drop at free fall or near free fall in one piece (or mostly one piece) for any significant amount of time, that is absurd. Only one side out of 4 of WTC7 is not visible in any collapse video. If 3 sides and the roof line dropped in unison as seen in various videos (two sides at a time), it stands to reason that the unseen side also dropped at the same rate as the other 3 sides. A lot of nonsense is being made about the East Penthouse dropping first, prompted by the fallacious NIST report, allegedly indicating the interior collapsed first, allegedly 11 or 12 seconds before the remainder of the building. But the West Penthouse, a wider section than the East Penthouse, remained visible after the East Penthouse dropped. And if the West Penthouse can be seen dropping along with the roof line, it means most of the interior (including most of the roof) also dropped symmetrically with the rest of the building. The drop was at free fall for 2.25 seconds (as measured by Chandler and published by NIST) from the moment the roof line began to descend, with no visible hesitation and lasting about 7 seconds in total from roof line descent to ground. So the free fall occurred for over 32% of the time of the entire descent. Furthermore, no precedent, experiment, or computer simulation can show that fire can cause such an event. OTOH, there are more than enough historical examples that show a CD can cause such an event.
Citation needed? Did you not bother to read your own link? It's in your link. 2.25 seconds = 81 feet. Where did you get this 12.5 seconds - break it down with distances fallen for each second - you can approximate - the graph is in NIST's final report. Also do it yourself and post your calculations and results. It's not hard then we can see how insignificant this 2.25 seconds is. Use only measured data. I bet you cannot do it as all you seem to be able to do is parrot NIST's model. Internationalsceptics is a forum that anyone can join! Do you actually bother to read any of your links? Why have you posted this again when it's rubbish? It's not based on any measured data. Do you not understand that it is a model ie not based on measurements. Does it not strike you a bit odd that, for example, at t=12.75, NIST model says the acceleration is about 7ft/s/s whereas all the other models state the acceleration is about 34ft/s/s. Or we could go to t=15, NIST model says the acceleration is about 33ft/s/s whereas all the other models state the acceleration is about 20ft/s/s So again, no measured data showed any of the collapse exceeding g. Do I need to put that in capitals? I don't think you know what a model is.
