What If Concrete Core Is Red Herring And Is There To Confuse Priorities?

Just wondering...

- Make7

and with consideration of the fact that there are images of the core that appear as concrete, not steel.



Additionally, since there are no images of the steel core columns at elevation in situ, it is illogical to even think there was anything but a concrete core. Unless you believe the official account.

Can you link to the web page that documents the FEMA, steel core columns with raw images from the demo?

I can link to a page that uses raw images of the demo to show the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com

It also has link data to engineering sites or other historical documentatons such as Oxford University describing the concrete core.

If you are trying to support the FEMA lie about the core which makes fires more believeable as a cause of a collapse (sic) then it makes sense to try and diminish the veracity of information proving the concrete core.

Also, it is logical to assume that those who have NO evidence for the FEMA core, who are also covertly supporting the perpetrators, to attempt to get people to think that the concrete core information is a distraction or invalid..

Please post a link to a site that has a realistic explanation for free fall to demonstrate that something other than concrete can be caused to fracture (in the case of concrete) and fall instantly.

FREE FALL EXPLAINED

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

well that would be a great explaination. however the buildings did NOT fall at free fall.


care to try again?

fall speed. They fell without resistance, as if the core and exterior tube were removed so as not to impede the fall of the upper floors.

BETTER!!!

the speeds were much slower than free fall.

NIST and FEMA.

go watch the video tape and time it. the times are about 50 to 100 % slower than free fall.

it is just one of many errors contained in the offical report.

It can be expressed simply using an equation for accelerated motion (from stand-still): x = (a t^2) / 2.

x = distance travelled
a = acceleration
t = time, in seconds.

Tower 1 was 1368 feet tall. The acceleration due to gravity on earth is 9.8 m/s^2.

9.8 m/s^2 = 32.15 ft/s^2.

So... using a little simple algebra:

1368 ft = (32.15 ft / s^2 * t) / 2

reducing...

1368 ft = 16.075 ft / s^2 * t

reducing further...

t = 85.10 s^2

And, finally...

t = 9.22 seconds

So, if the top of Tower 1 reached the ground anywhere close to 9.22 seconds after it started to collapse, that would be free-fall or damn close to it.

Feel free to redo the above for Tower 2, which was only 1362 feet tall. The numbers wind up being, for all practical purposes, the same.

There is a certain amount of upward travel to all of the debris we see. Not much vertically by proportion but certainly over half all the material seems to take at least a slight upward arc. By a very crude estmate from viewing a number of videos, about 30 feet certainly and often perhaps 70.

My point is that any thing that does not actually begin falling until it has gone up, has further to fall.

The formula is simple and accounts for an object in accelerated motion starting from rest.

If you want an object in accelerated motion starting from being moving then it's:

x = v * t + (a * t^2) / 2

And it's still a simple equation.

My point is more that, if the top of the building reaches the ground in the 9-10 second range, it's free-fall. Simple physics says that.

the total 10 second fall. How should it be sampled?

For example.
I believe the core was set with 300 ms delays every 40 feet, because the concrete of it was poured in 40 foot tiers and there was one access port per tier on each 3 inch rebar randomly placed on the inside of the core. The 300ms equates to free fall. that would be 34 ports per rebar over the full height.

An unknown percentage (I think about 1/2) was blown upwards perhaps 50 feet average for every 40 foot of descent. Meaning 1/2 of the core material (about 2/3 of the total concrete of the tower) went up that much before it went down. There needs to be an adjustment to these basic values ('cause we end up CALC.ing a 2700 foot tower) to compensate for one factor or another to get the fall rate closer to the measured time, but technically slightly faster than free fall.

The velocity upward is very fast, like 3000 fps average maybe, so that time needs a separate proportionate adjustment to be added to the height of the tower CALC.ed for free fall, or a factor to be subtracted from the final free fall rate.

Just to go with some back of the envelope numbers, if we say it took 10 seconds to fall and we want to figure the initial upward velocity...

(Calculations left as an exercise for the reader...)

We'd be left with an upward velocity of about 24 ft/sec. So something thrown up at 24 ft/sec (or with a vertical speed component of the velocity vector) starting at 1368 ft above ground would take about 10 seconds to reach the ground.

At 30 ft/sec vertical component, we're still very close to the 10 second range...

To get to, say, 15 seconds (just to give an outlying example), we'd need a starting vertical component of almost 150 ft/sec, presuming I just did the (admittedly quick and possibly even careless) calculations correctly.

Short answer, though, is that there's no way something falls in faster than free-fall time unless it *starts* with a downwards velocity component. The faster it goes up, the longer it takes to come down.

It's possible that some of the out-jetting of debris from the collapse was started downward, which would account for some of it reaching the ground in less than 10 seconds, but anything even close to 10 seconds would mean that there was *nothing* impeding the collapse.

To the best of my knowledge, even the supposed structural failure caused by "pancaking" would happen in non-instantaneous time, thus adding significantly to the time required for collapse. I'll have to defer to someone with an engineering background to give an indication of the time that would be required required for complete structural failure of a floor truss due to massive impact...

I think we can forget the rectangular concrete core tube pancaking EVER. Super strong compressional element.



The explosion has a radial quality horizontally and there could be a vertical aspect behind the face of falling debris. An actual load of particulate over an annular space could actually provide some resistence to upward explosions causing reflections downwards.

What is interesting is that each core face can be seen as a distinct plane going radial with explosion. There is even a vertical hollow zone between them which totally figures because the explosions are going away from each other.

If you don't know how to calculate the additional time required for the material "blown upwards", how are you able to determine that it was "technically slightly faster than free fall"?

Did any of the material "blown upwards" ever reach an elevation higher than the towers themselves? Or even within 50 feet of the top of the towers?

Didn't you once say that you worked for a civil engineer and did his work for him? Doesn't civil engineering require a reasonable proficiency at mathematics? I would think that your experience indicates that you should have the ability to do the calculations that you are asking about in your post.

Let me know if you come up with anything. And how that might be "technically slightly faster than free fall" given the actual collapse times.

- Make7

Intuitively I know that the mathematical product has little value and the chances of having any definitive distance upward is about zero. Meaning the entire proposal is a waste of time beyond simply establishing that there may be a need to reduce the total fall time to be comprehensive to major factors. Not a priority.

Explaining free fall is a priority.

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

... but I was hoping for something more substantial.

Since this material blown upwards adding to the calculated free-fall time theory is yours, I thought it would be beneficial for you to quantify the actual times you believe are involved. With your experience doing civil engineering work, this should be a fairly easy thing to calculate. Your obvious reluctance to do so is a bit surprising. Although your failure to substantiate a claim with anything other than your own opinion has become all too predictable.

Once again, I feel a need to reiterate my position. An explanation for free-fall is not required if free-fall did not occur. You have yet to demonstrate that free-fall actually happened for either tower.


Explaining something before even establishing that it happened seems to be a reversal of priorities, and quite likely a waste of time if it turns out that the event did not in fact occur as it has been assumed.

- Make7

Technically maybe a touch faster. We will never know, unimportant. They fell way too fast. And, they fell identically.

It was a demolition, not a collapse and this image proves it.

Great shot.

You can see damn thing looks like a volcano going off. Something from deep inside had to send out a lot of friggin' energy to cause this effect.

I've never had so much crap get through my popup blockers in my life.

So we don't have to go there - is this the image you are referring to?



Is this suppose to be proof of a concrete core?

I'm sorry, about half the building was fairly typical steel construction.

Image a square and then a bigger square around it. The square in the center part of the tower was constructed of steel beams and pans with concrete poured in the pans for the floor. The outer square was what was unusual and had never been done before. In order to create big open spaces without columns. Trusses were used and the outer walls hung from the trusses. Sort of like a house with a porch running around it, the house is strong and can stand on it own but the wrap around porch needs to be attached to something in order for support.



Keep in mind that the WTC was also build in a very odd way. They would build some floors and then jack it up and build some more floors. So it's hard to see the different stages of construction looking at the building from the top.

The below is not the concrete core of the towers. It cannot be because the core had elevators and stairs in it. No core space there.



Here is the core of WTC 2. It can only be concrete, The steel columns would be seen here if they existed. They did not. No image of them at upper elevations exists.



This image is correctly notated. Ironically i did not notate it. Whoever did was simply being honest. The only "massive columns" are outside the core, ringing it. Called "interior box columns". They were the inner wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The inner tube was steel reinforced concrete. Steel inside the croe area are elevator guide rails and their support structure. Much smaller.



It is fairly easy to see that the interior box columns are outside the concrete core. the spire below is near the corner of the core, but outside it.



NOTICE:No steel core columns are seen inside the core, ever.[]

Below is an image showing perhaps 100 or so 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers, This shot is taken immediately after the above shot a second later from the same camera. The above shot shows scale as the interior box column is 14 inches wide.

You should really brave the pop ups at,

http://concretecore.741.com

Because the structure that stood IS documented there.

Here is a old FEMA diagram altered to show how the concrete core was actually configured. This is WTC 1. WTC 2 was different. Two halls acros short axis and one acros the long.

its the only thing that can account for the spire falling before the building.

depending upon what type of weapon was used, the construction of the center of the building obviously couldn't withstand whatever was used to blow it up.

Whatever it was demolished not only concrete but lots of steel.

The rebar was coated with C4 in a centeralized grid well distributed through the core.
This method was used to make a "explosive shear" and cut the interior box columns. When the core blew the columns levered outwards pushing the 1x3 foot "I" beams out and ripping the perimeter walls apart, throowing them out and down as the walls hinged before snapping off at the joints in their jagged assembly panels.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

What were the reference points on the spire that were used to determine that it was falling before the rest of the building started collapsing?

If correct, that right there is pretty much a "smoking gun" for demolition. There's no way that something centrally located on the roof of one of the towers collapses before the damaged area itself collapses.

nna.

The rectangle of the core was formed on the roof in the helicopter shot I watched on 9-11 of WTC 1 fall, live.


Concrete can be fractured to fall instantly with a small amount of HE placed in the center and distributed.

Here is the method used to make nice square cuts of the interio box columns.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

The roof line has clearly begun to descend in the picture on the right.

Regardless... the antenna falling first indicates a core failure, but why a concrete core?

explosives placed in the center.

At around impact elevation one 40 foot section of the core is detonated, and the floors on one side cutting the interior box columns around the concrete. The top of the tower will fall that way because it will hinge on the perimeter columns and box of the opposite side after buckling the perimeter wall on the side where the floors blew.

kicking

massive explosive overkill. The only way I can explain it otherwise
is.... incompetence, overcompensation for stale explosives, or some
unwilling operative who suspected he wouldn't survive the contract
and who wanted to play a little trick on his bosses.

And yes, it does explain it. Floors blow up, core blows out, everything ground up with sand and gravel or chunks of concrete.