Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Concrete Core Can Fall At Free Fall, Steel Core Columns Cannot

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:37 PM
Original message
A Concrete Core Can Fall At Free Fall, Steel Core Columns Cannot
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 02:39 PM by Christophera
or, if they do they must be cut and that has a VERY specific appearance which does not resemble what was seen. Concrete can be fractured with far less energy and instantly fall.

Free fall was the major event of the day. Disbelief was on the faces of those watching. The rate of fall was astounding on its own, then the mushrooming, descending explosion mingled with the few seconds of fall to create the most unreal event of history. All photographed, and still, no credible explanation is forth coming from ANY authority.

To just say demolition is not enough. It didnt look like a controlled demolition weve seen on TV, it didnt look like a collapse either. Then, ........... it happened again, identically, even more impossible. The towers were known to be amazingly strong structures designed with a "tube in a tube" configuration that was super strong. In the center of the square towers was arectangular core housing elevators and stairways.

FEMA tells us this is what the core of the tower looked like.



47 tempered steel columns. The data available from official sources on the above structure is often self contradictory and does not inform us adequately enough explain the event. The mayor of NY took the WTC documents and will not return them, courts wont force the return.

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

Not just the US public is confused, but the BBC cant seem to agree with FEMAs core diagram.



All of the above justifies the peoples investigation based on raw photographic evidence to determine what kind of core the towers had. Here is an effort to compile facts that show the core was a steel reinforced concrete tube.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Since the towers did not fall at free fall speed,
is it safe then to assume they had steel cores?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It Was Too Close To Free Fall To Say It Was Not Free Fall & Not Fair
to the innocent dead after their right, our right to due process was violated.

Let us tolerate an error in their favor, our favor, a small one, if any at all, just this once. Okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. 50 to 100 percent slower than freefall is not close. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Christophera, do not..........
waste your time. Whatever they say just go "yep you are absolutely right, my mistake." To bad the Manhattan Project isn't going on today. They missed out on some really tremendous minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Are you not interested in the truth?
It was either free-fall or not. For you to suggest we tolerate an error concerning this matter is frankly disconcerting. Do the rest of the members of the '9/11 Truth' movement share this disregard for facts?

What do you believe the actual collapse times were, and how would they fit your definition of "close to free fall"?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Absolutely had steel column core structure...
so I guess the steel just somehow became sheared every few yards all the way to the ground as a result of a kerosene fireball 90 floors above!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. What a odd statement ...
who has ever said that was what happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. I know this info is wrong where...
Edited on Sat Mar-11-06 03:48 PM by wildbilln864
it says 800 degrees celsius is hot enought to melt steel. WRONG! 800 degrees C. is 1472 degrees F.
Melting point of steel is about 2500 degrees F. Therefore the credibility is void!
1000 degrees F. more temperature needed to melt steel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. If You Could Get Enough Steel To 800 C It Would Bend, But Without Forced
and ducted air fed to a fire below a well positioned piece of steel of that size in those conditions, you won't get it over 600 F with any consistency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. yes but it would...
take hours!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Then What Is All That Molten Steel Doing In That Hole A Month Later?


With the maximum temperaure of a fuel fire, this cannot happen ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Speaking of Strawman arguments ...
as discussed ad nasuem, they were not fuel fires.

Pot please met kettle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. House fires routinely get over 600 C / 1100 F without forced air ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. your point being...
what exactly? That's still not hot enough to bring down two 11o story skyscrapers to the ground. These fires didn't even burn that long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That fires get hot enough to weaken steel ..
but no need to take my word for it - how about the word of the top European fire safety company:

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267

They don't seem to have any problem accepting that the fires were hot enough to contribute to the collapse. So tell me why I should take your opinion over theirs? What are your credentials?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. So A Small Area Gets That Hot For A few Minutes When The Coals Bank
into a pile or draft up a masonry wall face.

We are talking 5 weeks later.

That excavator with the grapple is dipping into an area and fishing out what is solid. This cannot be compared to what happens in a house fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. So what explosives leave heat like that?
Don't keep us in suspense - just tell what the answer is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thermite Can Melt Mass Steel In Seconds, Underground Holds It in
Thermite does not detonate. It burns so fast that the ATFB classes it with high explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. But regular fires will make steel glow red hot ...
and since the rubble pile is such a perfect insulator, there is no need for thermite, is there?

That beam was not melted - just heated to a high temperature. Since thermite melts steel, are you saying that thermite on just a small part of the beam was enough to heat the rest of the beam red hot? Because the beam we saw being removed from the rubble was not melted so obviously there was no thermite it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. No Oxygen For Fire In Rubble Pile & Fuel Not Consistent Enough
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 10:31 PM by Christophera

Posted by hack89

But regular fires will make steel glow red hot and since the rubble pile is such a perfect insulator, there is no need for thermite, is there?

That beam was not melted - just heated to a high temperature. Since thermite melts steel, are you saying that thermite on just a small part of the beam was enough to heat the rest of the beam red hot? Because the beam we saw being removed from the rubble was not melted so obviously there was no thermite it


The rubble insulates but also cuts off fire from oxygen, meaning that fires will go out quickly.

That beam was probably just over the molten puddle, or perhpas it had fallen in and was in the process of melting when it was pulled out. The thermite was gone within minutes of the north tower hitting the ground, but the tons of steel melted sought low points where it gathered into pools and kept fires lit in the rubble for weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. So why was the pile emitting combustion products ..
for months after the collapse? Combustion = fire = oxygen in any science book I've ever read.


Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001


http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I PostedThis: tons of steel melted kept fires lit in the rubble for weeks.
and that is what kept combustion products rising from the debri.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. So there was oxygen? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yes There Was Oxygen, But Not Enough To Melt Steel, Just To Keep Smolderin
g.

The steel kept re igniting flamables.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. Found this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:47 AM
Response to Original message
25. if you cut up the beams they will fall.
they can be cut up using thermite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yes, But Doing So Creates Effects Not Seen.
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 06:17 PM by Christophera
cutting steel with high explosives requires huge loading meaning that some shrapnel will be expelled at near 20,000 foot per second.

To cut the 47 1,300 foot columns into pieces small enough to disapear from photos requires up to 1,500 cuts. To make those cuts would totally change the visual character of the event.

If there was enough thermite high in the tower to facilitate the collapse we saw, molten steel would have been splattered around ground zero and noted. As it was there was only molten steel in the basement having flowed there from nearby locations. That molten steel was undoubtly created by thermite. That is actually the ONLY way to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Thermite is not a high explosive
And it does create at least one effect that was seen: lots of molten iron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. But Creates Lots Of Molten Iron - Perhaps Not High In Tower, But Vehicles
set ablaze a block or so away may have been hit by molten steel from a few critical cuts in steel just as high explosives blew concrete apart.

There is an entire research package left undone here. I don't have time but you might have success with it by proving your point that thermite was used high int he tower.

RESEARCH:
the locations and numbers of vehicles set ablaze around the WTC. Corelate this to the directions the towers fell to the locations of burned vehicles. Top of WTC one went south, body went north. Top of WTC 2 went west, top went east. Cutting the perimeter wall with thermite would actually do this very well, might be actually necessary for the radical differences in fall directions, timings we saw.

This would have to be done under cover of dust or smoke. Still it might be seen and photos may show some of it.

Generally look for cars burned fairly far away south of 1 and west of 2, cars closer east of 2 and north of 1.

Most of the steel was thrust outwards by the concrete core exploding, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html and so did not need thermite at elevation, only on the first floor and the basement. Except for directing the fall by cuttin gthe perimeter columns. Explosives out there would be very obvious and not possible to cover, whereas under cover of explosions timed milliseconds before slightly above, thermite initiations could be hidden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC