QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 12:00 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 11:33 PM)
What program did you use for that EXIF? The first thing I did after his post was run that picture in photoshop CS2 and I didn't see anything... Not that you didn't get that from the photo but I was just wondering why I didn't.
IRFANVIEW
My favorite Graphics viewer. Its free, but if you use it send him a few bucks via paypal. He's been supporting this thing for years and it is a super program.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Arthur
Wouldn’t it be easier if we just sent the money directly to you and Con men Sense?
Were is the outrage from RC?
The Author's name is Irfan Skiljan
I think he's Dutch but apparently was born in Bosnia.
(see the website)
The program was first made available a decade ago.
I discovered it a few years after that.
It was free then, its still free now.
He constantly improves it (I'm 4 levels back)
I find it will display pictures other programs won't and supports an incredible array of graphic and video files.
Recently he added a paypal account so IF YOU WANT TO you can send him a few bucks. I did because I've gotten so much use out of it over the years.
But you can also use the progam for free and there are no restrictions or limitations if you do so.
Arthur
IRFANVIEW
My favorite Graphics viewer. Its free, but if you use it send him a few bucks via paypal. He's been supporting this thing for years and it is a super program.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Arthur
Wouldn’t it be easier if we just sent the money directly to you and Con men Sense?
Were is the outrage from RC?
The Author's name is Irfan Skiljan
I think he's Dutch but apparently was born in Bosnia.
(see the website)
The program was first made available a decade ago.
I discovered it a few years after that.
It was free then, its still free now.
He constantly improves it (I'm 4 levels back)
I find it will display pictures other programs won't and supports an incredible array of graphic and video files.
Recently he added a paypal account so IF YOU WANT TO you can send him a few bucks. I did because I've gotten so much use out of it over the years.
But you can also use the progam for free and there are no restrictions or limitations if you do so.
Arthur
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
&partner
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2006, 04:38 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 12:00 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 11:33 PM)
What program did you use for that EXIF? The first thing I did after his post was run that picture in photoshop CS2 and I didn't see anything... Not that you didn't get that from the photo but I was just wondering why I didn't.
IRFANVIEW
My favorite Graphics viewer. Its free, but if you use it send him a few bucks via paypal. He's been supporting this thing for years and it is a super program.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Arthur
Wouldn’t it be easier if we just sent the money directly to you and Con men Sense?
Were is the outrage from RC?
The Author's name is Irfan Skiljan
I think he's Dutch but apparently was born in Bosnia.
(see the website)
The program was first made available a decade ago.
I discovered it a few years after that.
It was free then, its still free now.
He constantly improves it (I'm 4 levels back)
I find it will display pictures other programs won't and supports an incredible array of graphic and video files.
Recently he added a paypal account so IF YOU WANT TO you can send him a few bucks. I did because I've gotten so much use out of it over the years.
But you can also use the progam for free and there are no restrictions or limitations if you do so.
Arthur
I thought these might be interesting articles about the molten metal (aluminum) seen coming out of the towers
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
There's also something else in the article for the CT'er to play with.
Here's another couple articles on the aluminum
http://www.meehawl.dyndns.org:1080/Webstor...ort%20Says.html
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten materical began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum serived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf
Read more about it
For example Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increses. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
This reminds me, remember what Jones edited out of Eagars quotes "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C." Hmm....I wonder why Jones did that??
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
IRFANVIEW
My favorite Graphics viewer. Its free, but if you use it send him a few bucks via paypal. He's been supporting this thing for years and it is a super program.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Arthur
Wouldn’t it be easier if we just sent the money directly to you and Con men Sense?
Were is the outrage from RC?
The Author's name is Irfan Skiljan
I think he's Dutch but apparently was born in Bosnia.
(see the website)
The program was first made available a decade ago.
I discovered it a few years after that.
It was free then, its still free now.
He constantly improves it (I'm 4 levels back)
I find it will display pictures other programs won't and supports an incredible array of graphic and video files.
Recently he added a paypal account so IF YOU WANT TO you can send him a few bucks. I did because I've gotten so much use out of it over the years.
But you can also use the progam for free and there are no restrictions or limitations if you do so.
Arthur
I thought these might be interesting articles about the molten metal (aluminum) seen coming out of the towers
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
There's also something else in the article for the CT'er to play with.
Here's another couple articles on the aluminum
http://www.meehawl.dyndns.org:1080/Webstor...ort%20Says.html
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten materical began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum serived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf
Read more about it
For example Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increses. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
This reminds me, remember what Jones edited out of Eagars quotes "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C." Hmm....I wonder why Jones did that??
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 3 2006, 03:17 AM)
Actually, I'm not even sure that's Schneibster. Mel/faux must have taken that photo from somewhere and created a schnubster account in GNN. Heh!
well, whoever it is, he looks completely and dangerously insane.
well, whoever it is, he looks completely and dangerously insane.
so, the towers hit the planes.
and, then it got hot on a bunch of floors.
and then the whole top piece acted like a plunger, translating one hundred percent of it's potential energy into a perfectly straight line(this is the math you shills bandy about. not your verbal description).
you offer no acceleration curve for deflection and slow warping typical of steel frame failure. your model behaves as if steel were brittle, and prone to snapping, versus, bending. your model keeps the top in one piece, and begins crushing the floors beneath it at initiation. that's not what happened. the 'caps' collapsed into dust first, and then the lower portion collapsed. once again, your mathematical model doesn't match reality. it also divides the mass of the towers evenly spaced, instead of considering the vast difference in the mass of steel at the base, vs, the thinnest columns on the top floors.
the concrete of the floors were practically paper thin. they were not 'heavy' to the 'eyes' of the loadbearing columns. because the 'trees' with the spandrels were three stories high, and staggered, they would not behave as 'one floor'.
i've said it since the beginning of this thread, and i'll say it again, one whole floors worth of support can't give out simultaneously without explosives.
without one floors worth of 'cap' potential energy(the power of nine million atomic bombs), the power requirement for collapse fizzles down to a mere couple tons of tnt equivalent + 'cap' energy.
without the top having the ability to impart such a massive force(nine million atomic bombs!), the ability of the lower portions of the tower to stop the ARMAGEDDON of DOOM BOMBS FROM ABOVE is greatly improved.
tower seven. yeah, okay.
pretty freefally.
you guys are tiring. HAHA! frickin fascist propoganda. gotta hate it..
and, then it got hot on a bunch of floors.
and then the whole top piece acted like a plunger, translating one hundred percent of it's potential energy into a perfectly straight line(this is the math you shills bandy about. not your verbal description).
you offer no acceleration curve for deflection and slow warping typical of steel frame failure. your model behaves as if steel were brittle, and prone to snapping, versus, bending. your model keeps the top in one piece, and begins crushing the floors beneath it at initiation. that's not what happened. the 'caps' collapsed into dust first, and then the lower portion collapsed. once again, your mathematical model doesn't match reality. it also divides the mass of the towers evenly spaced, instead of considering the vast difference in the mass of steel at the base, vs, the thinnest columns on the top floors.
the concrete of the floors were practically paper thin. they were not 'heavy' to the 'eyes' of the loadbearing columns. because the 'trees' with the spandrels were three stories high, and staggered, they would not behave as 'one floor'.
i've said it since the beginning of this thread, and i'll say it again, one whole floors worth of support can't give out simultaneously without explosives.
without one floors worth of 'cap' potential energy(the power of nine million atomic bombs), the power requirement for collapse fizzles down to a mere couple tons of tnt equivalent + 'cap' energy.
without the top having the ability to impart such a massive force(nine million atomic bombs!), the ability of the lower portions of the tower to stop the ARMAGEDDON of DOOM BOMBS FROM ABOVE is greatly improved.
tower seven. yeah, okay.
pretty freefally.
you guys are tiring. HAHA! frickin fascist propoganda. gotta hate it..
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 07:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
QUOTE
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 07:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Your still fixated on the tube within a tube. Mire everyone with details so they forget how moronic you were to suggest it wasn't called a "tube within a tube" why don't you...
MORON!
I never debated if their was or wasn't concrete around the core. I DO know however there was steel.
Is it a tube within a tube you moron you?
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Your still fixated on the tube within a tube. Mire everyone with details so they forget how moronic you were to suggest it wasn't called a "tube within a tube" why don't you...
MORON!I never debated if their was or wasn't concrete around the core. I DO know however there was steel.
Is it a tube within a tube you moron you?
Where the planes struck was probably an optimal target, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way from the top. The columns were thicker and stronger at lower sections, so the aircraft probably wouldn't have taken out as many columns if they had struck lower. Hitting near the top would damage more columns but then again there would be less weight from the fewer floors above the impact region to start a global collapse.
It looks like the pilots had enough sense to bank the aircraft about 30 degrees to try to take out more than one floor. They may have done this solely for trying to kill as many people on multiple floors. However, it probably aided the setup for a global collapse since the remaining intact columns will effectively be longer and have less buckling strength when multiple adjacent floors have been taken out.
For long columns the elastic buckling strength goes to the inverse square of the column height. The loss of one floor connection effectively doubles the column height . That decreases the buckling strength by a factor of 4. The loss of two adjacent floors would effectively increase the column height by a factor of 3, so the buckling strength would be reduced by a factor of 9. Things aren't quite so simple in the real world as that, but in principle the loss of multiple adjacent floors causes a rapid decrease in buckling strength.
The partial buckling of the columns themselves that was observed on the towers decreases the buckling strength greatly, even if the floors are still attached to them.
It's also worth noting that the aircraft went in but didn't come out, which is also optimal since all of that kinetic energy went into damaging the aircraft and the building. Had the aircraft hit near the top, part of the aircraft might have come out the other side, squandering kinetic energy that could have been used to damage the building.
It looks like the pilots had enough sense to bank the aircraft about 30 degrees to try to take out more than one floor. They may have done this solely for trying to kill as many people on multiple floors. However, it probably aided the setup for a global collapse since the remaining intact columns will effectively be longer and have less buckling strength when multiple adjacent floors have been taken out.
For long columns the elastic buckling strength goes to the inverse square of the column height. The loss of one floor connection effectively doubles the column height . That decreases the buckling strength by a factor of 4. The loss of two adjacent floors would effectively increase the column height by a factor of 3, so the buckling strength would be reduced by a factor of 9. Things aren't quite so simple in the real world as that, but in principle the loss of multiple adjacent floors causes a rapid decrease in buckling strength.
The partial buckling of the columns themselves that was observed on the towers decreases the buckling strength greatly, even if the floors are still attached to them.
It's also worth noting that the aircraft went in but didn't come out, which is also optimal since all of that kinetic energy went into damaging the aircraft and the building. Had the aircraft hit near the top, part of the aircraft might have come out the other side, squandering kinetic energy that could have been used to damage the building.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 3 2006, 09:30 AM)
so, the towers hit the planes.
and, then it got hot on a bunch of floors.
and then the whole top piece acted like a plunger, translating one hundred percent of it's potential energy into a perfectly straight line(this is the math you shills bandy about. not your verbal description).
you offer no acceleration curve for deflection and slow warping typical of steel frame failure. your model behaves as if steel were brittle, and prone to snapping, versus, bending. your model keeps the top in one piece, and begins crushing the floors beneath it at initiation. that's not what happened. the 'caps' collapsed into dust first, and then the lower portion collapsed. once again, your mathematical model doesn't match reality. it also divides the mass of the towers evenly spaced, instead of considering the vast difference in the mass of steel at the base, vs, the thinnest columns on the top floors.
the concrete of the floors were practically paper thin. they were not 'heavy' to the 'eyes' of the loadbearing columns. because the 'trees' with the spandrels were three stories high, and staggered, they would not behave as 'one floor'.
i've said it since the beginning of this thread, and i'll say it again, one whole floors worth of support can't give out simultaneously without explosives.
without one floors worth of 'cap' potential energy(the power of nine million atomic bombs), the power requirement for collapse fizzles down to a mere couple tons of tnt equivalent + 'cap' energy.
without the top having the ability to impart such a massive force(nine million atomic bombs!), the ability of the lower portions of the tower to stop the ARMAGEDDON of DOOM BOMBS FROM ABOVE is greatly improved.
tower seven. yeah, okay.
pretty freefally.
you guys are tiring. HAHA! frickin fascist propoganda. gotta hate it..
HAHAHA A study in Staw Man arguments! A clear sign these idiots don't have a clue.
and, then it got hot on a bunch of floors.
and then the whole top piece acted like a plunger, translating one hundred percent of it's potential energy into a perfectly straight line(this is the math you shills bandy about. not your verbal description).
you offer no acceleration curve for deflection and slow warping typical of steel frame failure. your model behaves as if steel were brittle, and prone to snapping, versus, bending. your model keeps the top in one piece, and begins crushing the floors beneath it at initiation. that's not what happened. the 'caps' collapsed into dust first, and then the lower portion collapsed. once again, your mathematical model doesn't match reality. it also divides the mass of the towers evenly spaced, instead of considering the vast difference in the mass of steel at the base, vs, the thinnest columns on the top floors.
the concrete of the floors were practically paper thin. they were not 'heavy' to the 'eyes' of the loadbearing columns. because the 'trees' with the spandrels were three stories high, and staggered, they would not behave as 'one floor'.
i've said it since the beginning of this thread, and i'll say it again, one whole floors worth of support can't give out simultaneously without explosives.
without one floors worth of 'cap' potential energy(the power of nine million atomic bombs), the power requirement for collapse fizzles down to a mere couple tons of tnt equivalent + 'cap' energy.
without the top having the ability to impart such a massive force(nine million atomic bombs!), the ability of the lower portions of the tower to stop the ARMAGEDDON of DOOM BOMBS FROM ABOVE is greatly improved.
tower seven. yeah, okay.
pretty freefally.
you guys are tiring. HAHA! frickin fascist propoganda. gotta hate it..
HAHAHA A study in Staw Man arguments! A clear sign these idiots don't have a clue.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 09:34 AM)
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
Yeah, could you be so kind as to get that for him reasonwhy...
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
Yeah, could you be so kind as to get that for him reasonwhy...
BTW, I said the towers were not "Steel reinforced concrete buildings" as in the apartment buildings shown in the jones paper. There were no steel rebar in concrete walls. The steel perimeter columns did not have concrete poured over them. I've never taken up the issue of the floor concrete having rebar but it doesn't matter either way to my argument.
Clearly from the photos I've shown the core columns didn't have concrete poured over them.
Their arguments have been falling faster than building 7 and now all they have left are personal attacks and lies. Sad to see this on a physics board...
Clearly from the photos I've shown the core columns didn't have concrete poured over them.
Their arguments have been falling faster than building 7 and now all they have left are personal attacks and lies. Sad to see this on a physics board...
QUOTE (newton+)
the whole top piece acted like a plunger, translating one hundred percent of it's potential energy into a perfectly straight line
Ah, the pictures show THAT ain't right, so he must be referring to Schneibster's Perl Program. Which was of course done as a simplified way of looking at the collapse, not as a full mathematical model of the collapse.
Now I don't have Perl (nor do most people) so I've been turning that Perl program into a spreadsheet and interestingly one of the first things I did was to change the Mass that persists to a variable (currently I've set it to 80%) but it doesn't appear to have that much effect on the timing.
I'm also changing the Mass equations for the each floor, but that will take longer, to account for the lower steel weights as one goes up. While doing this I think I found a potential flaw in this calculation, in that when we see reports of how much steel there were in the towers and how much they weighed, one should probably include that massive underground complex. I'm just guessing but I'd say only 75% or so of the quoted weights may actually be in the towers. In any case, this is what I'm researching at the present, trying to determine the ACTUAL weight of the towers.
Then there is the difference in steel as you go up. This appears to be relatively insignificant as to weight of the towers on a percentage basis though, one reason is I think for the PE calculations one should leave off the outside columns anyway (below the collapse point). There was a pistoning affect and as such the outside columns tended to just fall away, not participate in the accumulating KE.
Ah, the pictures show THAT ain't right, so he must be referring to Schneibster's Perl Program. Which was of course done as a simplified way of looking at the collapse, not as a full mathematical model of the collapse.
Now I don't have Perl (nor do most people) so I've been turning that Perl program into a spreadsheet and interestingly one of the first things I did was to change the Mass that persists to a variable (currently I've set it to 80%) but it doesn't appear to have that much effect on the timing.
I'm also changing the Mass equations for the each floor, but that will take longer, to account for the lower steel weights as one goes up. While doing this I think I found a potential flaw in this calculation, in that when we see reports of how much steel there were in the towers and how much they weighed, one should probably include that massive underground complex. I'm just guessing but I'd say only 75% or so of the quoted weights may actually be in the towers. In any case, this is what I'm researching at the present, trying to determine the ACTUAL weight of the towers.
Then there is the difference in steel as you go up. This appears to be relatively insignificant as to weight of the towers on a percentage basis though, one reason is I think for the PE calculations one should leave off the outside columns anyway (below the collapse point). There was a pistoning affect and as such the outside columns tended to just fall away, not participate in the accumulating KE.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 01:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 07:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Well, these texts claim just that:
http://concretecore.741.com
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Several references are supplied, one from an Oxford University publication, one from FEMA itself.
Here is the schematic:
Well, these texts claim just that:
http://concretecore.741.com
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Several references are supplied, one from an Oxford University publication, one from FEMA itself.
Here is the schematic:
I will read the information. It would make a significant difference. It also would explain why there are references to “Tube within Tube” design.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
QUOTE
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways. |
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
The MIT article by Ulm about the towers states:
"The 24m x 42m core was composed of 44 box columns. The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads. The core was designed to resist vertical loads and was not assumed to transfer any lateral loads."
"The 24m x 42m core was composed of 44 box columns. The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels designed to share part of the gravity loads. The core was designed to resist vertical loads and was not assumed to transfer any lateral loads."
Now that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- should we spend much time addressing the output of the Whopper Factory or should we heed metamars and use our time to get information such as the existence of Scholars for Truth out to those whos input could make difference?
Andrew Johnston, the creator of the thread, has penned a letter to the BBC demanding they fullfill the obligations in their charter to balanced broadcasting. He has included material, links to ST911 etc, saying he will take legal proceedings if there is no acceptable response to his complaint. It will be interesting to see the response from this behemoth.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- should we spend much time addressing the output of the Whopper Factory or should we heed metamars and use our time to get information such as the existence of Scholars for Truth out to those whos input could make difference?
Andrew Johnston, the creator of the thread, has penned a letter to the BBC demanding they fullfill the obligations in their charter to balanced broadcasting. He has included material, links to ST911 etc, saying he will take legal proceedings if there is no acceptable response to his complaint. It will be interesting to see the response from this behemoth.
I would like to know if it is true as suggested earlier (http://concretecore.741.com/ ) that the core of the WTC was a "reinforced concrete tower". This is, to my mind, a rather significant piece of information ...
Can anyone confidently confirm or deny this proposition?
Can anyone confidently confirm or deny this proposition?
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 08:16 AM)
I would like to know if it is true as suggested earlier (http://concretecore.741.com/ ) that the core of the WTC was a "reinforced concrete tower". This is, to my mind, a rather significant piece of information ...
Can anyone confidently confirm or deny this proposition?
The floors were definitely concrete and possibly reinforced. I have not read any articles that seriously claims the walls were reinforced concrete. I believe several threads at the Demicratic Undergroud forum cover the subject.
Can anyone confidently confirm or deny this proposition?
The floors were definitely concrete and possibly reinforced. I have not read any articles that seriously claims the walls were reinforced concrete. I believe several threads at the Demicratic Undergroud forum cover the subject.
QUOTE
I have not read any articles that seriously claims the walls were reinforced concrete
Well, these texts claim just that:
http://concretecore.741.com
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Several references are supplied, one from an Oxford University publication, one from FEMA itself.
Here is the schematic:
The concrete core hypothesis explains this photo quite well:
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE
I have not read any articles that seriously claims the walls were reinforced concrete
Well, these texts claim just that:
http://concretecore.741.com
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Several references are supplied, one from an Oxford University publication, one from FEMA itself.
Here is the schematic:
I will read the information. It would make a significant difference. It also would explain why there are references to “Tube within Tube” design.
You can tell from the multiple construction pictures that there was not a concrete reinforced core.
See any Concrete molds? See any rebar?
Arthur
See any Concrete molds? See any rebar?
Arthur
i see a distinct delineation between the concrete of the floor pans, and the concrete of the core floor.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 3 2006, 01:24 PM)
i see a distinct delineation between the concrete of the floor pans, and the concrete of the core floor.
There should be a difference.
The concrete of the floors was a lightweight concrete (they use cinders instead of aggregate, thus keeping the weight down) while the Core was a stronger mix (no cinders, regular aggregate and probably reinforced with rebar as well)
What you DON'T see is REINFORCED CONCRETE poured around the Columns or as WALLS between the columns.
Arthur
There should be a difference.
The concrete of the floors was a lightweight concrete (they use cinders instead of aggregate, thus keeping the weight down) while the Core was a stronger mix (no cinders, regular aggregate and probably reinforced with rebar as well)
What you DON'T see is REINFORCED CONCRETE poured around the Columns or as WALLS between the columns.
Arthur
I would assume most of the vertical loading on the core was taken up by the box columns themselves and not the concrete infill panels, although the infill panels would take up some of the loading.
It wasn't as if there were steel box columns embedded in concrete. My understanding is that the infill panels were concrete reinforced with steel and were placed around sets of the core columns to form interior passages. I assume that concrete was needed for the panels because something as flimsy as gypsym board would get blown out from pressure waves made by high speed elevators.
The stairwells themselves were lined only with gypsum board from what I understand, apparently because there wasn't the problem of pressure waves in stairwells as there was in elevator shafts and gypsum is cheap and lightweight. The gypsum board in the stairwells proved to be a problem since it got jarred loose in the impact and blocked the stairwells.
It wasn't as if there were steel box columns embedded in concrete. My understanding is that the infill panels were concrete reinforced with steel and were placed around sets of the core columns to form interior passages. I assume that concrete was needed for the panels because something as flimsy as gypsym board would get blown out from pressure waves made by high speed elevators.
The stairwells themselves were lined only with gypsum board from what I understand, apparently because there wasn't the problem of pressure waves in stairwells as there was in elevator shafts and gypsum is cheap and lightweight. The gypsum board in the stairwells proved to be a problem since it got jarred loose in the impact and blocked the stairwells.
here's an independent's autocad drawing of a typical floor plan, compared to nist's version of a typical floor plan: more honest than an perjurNIST.
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
here's an independent's autocad drawing of a typical floor plan, compared to nist's version of a typical floor plan: more honest than an perjurNIST.
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
Anyone who actually reads the NIST reports will see that a full and complete description of the columns accompnies the images.
Anyone too lazy or stupid to read and who draws conculsions based soley on looking at the pretty pictures need not attempt discussing the topic on a physics forum.
Anyone too lazy or stupid to read and who draws conculsions based soley on looking at the pretty pictures need not attempt discussing the topic on a physics forum.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 3 2006, 06:16 PM)
Anyone who actually reads the NIST reports will see that a full and complete description of the columns accompnies the images.
Anyone too lazy or stupid to read and who draws conculsions based soley on looking at the pretty pictures need not attempt discussing the topic on a physics forum.
that being the case, why did nist not just do an honest drawing? are perhaps more millions required to allow nist to make accurate representations of all things WTC? talk about lazy and stupid.
they oversized them in the drawings. as with many things 'official lie', the verbal descriptions do not match the mathematical or graphic representations.
poisoning the well, was the phrase, i believe.
maybe soon, we can also discuss whether the plumbing fixtures were 'american standard' or 'crane', as the fracture faults of american standard products behave differently in a runaway global collapse.
Anyone too lazy or stupid to read and who draws conculsions based soley on looking at the pretty pictures need not attempt discussing the topic on a physics forum.
that being the case, why did nist not just do an honest drawing? are perhaps more millions required to allow nist to make accurate representations of all things WTC? talk about lazy and stupid.
they oversized them in the drawings. as with many things 'official lie', the verbal descriptions do not match the mathematical or graphic representations.
poisoning the well, was the phrase, i believe.
maybe soon, we can also discuss whether the plumbing fixtures were 'american standard' or 'crane', as the fracture faults of american standard products behave differently in a runaway global collapse.
Try this NIST report.
Description of the core starts on page 8. Accompanying it is a pretty picture that shows even more detail than the nice autocad drawing that newton supplys. That would be Figure 1-5 which is labeled as floor 96 of WTC 1. Note the massive corner columns which the description states took 20% of the total gravity load.
Later on , Figure 6-12 shows a close up of the model of the 96th floor that was used in the sims. This very clearly shows the a few core columns and accurately depicts their size compared to the perimeter columns for instance.
Now this is but ONE NIST report and I know that in another I saw core column dimensions given. I would have to spend more than the 20 minutes it took to find what I have shown in this post to relocate that description. Can't do that now as I have to return to work, lunch is over.
However I have shown that the characterization that NIST is trying to mislead is dishonest or lazy.
Description of the core starts on page 8. Accompanying it is a pretty picture that shows even more detail than the nice autocad drawing that newton supplys. That would be Figure 1-5 which is labeled as floor 96 of WTC 1. Note the massive corner columns which the description states took 20% of the total gravity load.
Later on , Figure 6-12 shows a close up of the model of the 96th floor that was used in the sims. This very clearly shows the a few core columns and accurately depicts their size compared to the perimeter columns for instance.
Now this is but ONE NIST report and I know that in another I saw core column dimensions given. I would have to spend more than the 20 minutes it took to find what I have shown in this post to relocate that description. Can't do that now as I have to return to work, lunch is over.
However I have shown that the characterization that NIST is trying to mislead is dishonest or lazy.
Oversized or undersized, newton?
Your point was details newton, and now you wish to complain that I am bringing up details and sarcastically ask about the toilet manufacturer.
How young are you?
Your point was details newton, and now you wish to complain that I am bringing up details and sarcastically ask about the toilet manufacturer.
How young are you?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 01:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 07:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Yeah, I didn't read those. I simply entered "WTC Tube in a tube" in google and those came up. I looked at the picture and the "tube in a tube" statement and thought it was yet another person talking about the old WTC.
So yeah, I make mistakes like other humans. But unlike you and Bush I admit to them and move on.
Again,
ARE THE TOWERS A "TUBE IN A TUBE" DESIGN?
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
QUOTE
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways. |
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Common Sence most likely did not even read the article before he posted it as proof of " tube within a tube" design. It is talking about a new design for the WTC.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Yeah, I didn't read those. I simply entered "WTC Tube in a tube" in google and those came up. I looked at the picture and the "tube in a tube" statement and thought it was yet another person talking about the old WTC.
So yeah, I make mistakes like other humans. But unlike you and Bush I admit to them and move on.
Again,
ARE THE TOWERS A "TUBE IN A TUBE" DESIGN?
QUOTE
You are correct. You still have...
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
QUOTE (brian+Mar 3 2006, 03:57 PM)
Now that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- should we spend much time addressing the output of the Whopper Factory or should we heed metamars and use our time to get information such as the existence of Scholars for Truth out to those whos input could make difference?
Andrew Johnston, the creator of the thread, has penned a letter to the BBC demanding they fullfill the obligations in their charter to balanced broadcasting. He has included material, links to ST911 etc, saying he will take legal proceedings if there is no acceptable response to his complaint. It will be interesting to see the response from this behemoth.
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
4 years and not ONE paper passed peer in a main stream journal proving CD.
In the same amount of time...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236
Where's your PEER REVIEWED PAPERS if "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job"?...
WHERE?
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- should we spend much time addressing the output of the Whopper Factory or should we heed metamars and use our time to get information such as the existence of Scholars for Truth out to those whos input could make difference?
Andrew Johnston, the creator of the thread, has penned a letter to the BBC demanding they fullfill the obligations in their charter to balanced broadcasting. He has included material, links to ST911 etc, saying he will take legal proceedings if there is no acceptable response to his complaint. It will be interesting to see the response from this behemoth.
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
4 years and not ONE paper passed peer in a main stream journal proving CD.
In the same amount of time...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236
Where's your PEER REVIEWED PAPERS if "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job"?...
WHERE?
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 04:51 PM)
The concrete core hypothesis explains this photo quite well:
Actually, that photo is also explained by a pancake effect around the steel core without conctrete walls.
The other photo I posted shows the core with steel beams falling away. No concrete in sight.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Actually, that photo is also explained by a pancake effect around the steel core without conctrete walls.
The other photo I posted shows the core with steel beams falling away. No concrete in sight.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 3 2006, 09:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 3 2006, 07:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 2 2006, 10:27 PM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Most Post 9-11 Pages Refer To Steel Core
And you have pointed out an inequity or tell tale of the deceptions of those post 9-11 pages by highlighting the ambiguity of "reinforced steel core". The redundancy of the term and its ambiguity beg explanation. As far as images of the core, a thorough sifting of archives of construction photos by the "Ministry Of Truth" would insure that no pictures of the concrete remain.
In the documentary I viewed in 1990 the narration stated that the core was difficult to photograph as it was being constructed inside the interior box columns ringing the core. Also that there was sometimes only a day or 2 where the advancing top edge of exposed aggregate and rebar were visible without forms. The videographers, while logging the tapes made from original 16mm footage, noted that the core had gained a mysterious quality. Partly from the problems and slow down from the butt welds of the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar,
and then from the difficulties presented from low light as the core face was up to 60 feet from the perimeter. The timing of the placement of the interior breakdown steel form and the standard wood forms framed against the inside of the interior box columns erected ahead of the concrete by as much as 7 floors, judged by the scarcity of photos, made the core difficult to photograph.
There were only 2 good images of the core that showed the exposed aggregate top of the poured concrete. One was a typical top level sunny day, probably the same day that the real clear color stills were taken of the perimeter columns and the spandrel plates, truss panels, all red lead coated silhouetted against the blue sky. That was a film clip that looked out to sea over the rough top of the pour, rebar protruding, panning across a 15-20 feet top of core wall near a corner.
The other image was a black and white still photo that looked inside the forms from a corner location, with a few sheets of the exterior form removed and out to the sky, not at the top level, showing the rebar protruding, looking up a sloping top of pour.
The narration indicated that the videograpers considered that BW photo to be the best, or despite it's slight underexposure (backlit to the side) at least showed both inner and outer forms with the rough aggregate top of pour. It also explained at that point the engineers requirement, which made a difficult job even worse, that the concrete AND the butt weld of the rebar reinforcing the cast concrete shear wall be made with a slope that opposed on each side for maximum torsion resistance.
There were some images looking through hallway openings in the shear wall upward in good light that showed the interior walls of the core and there was a segment that documented the precise fitting/welding needed to join the inside face of the hand fabricated, tapering interior box columns to the tapering concrete face of the core shear wall. It mentioned shimming between the steel and concrete at contact points to compensate for the inability to hold the 0.03 foot tolerance while showing a welder on scaffold working below an interior box column, floor beam joint.
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
Up close with Schneibster/Common Sense
Is it just me or does the guy look like he's about to have a heart attack?
LMAO
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
You will need to talk to Common Sense. He is the supporter of the" Tube within a Tube” and posted the concrete core reference.
You can also donate to his vacation fund above.
Hello,
Could you cite a post by common sense where he discusses the above? I just did a search but could not find any.
In the linked page above there's article which says the WTC core was a "reinforced concrete tower" - referenced as "Oxford University in 1992 ".
At skyscraper.org theres an article which I'll quote from: (link)
QUOTE
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the building's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
I have italicized some words in the quote above. Question: What the #$#$ is a "reinforced steel core" ?
Is this a typo? Do they really mean "steel reinforced concrete core" or did someone edit the article at some point to bring it in line with the Ministry of Truth version?
I have been doing some google searches on "reinforced steel", but most pages which come up are describing steel reinforced concrete.
Can someone clarify this for me?
cheers
(: hereward
Most Post 9-11 Pages Refer To Steel Core
And you have pointed out an inequity or tell tale of the deceptions of those post 9-11 pages by highlighting the ambiguity of "reinforced steel core". The redundancy of the term and its ambiguity beg explanation. As far as images of the core, a thorough sifting of archives of construction photos by the "Ministry Of Truth" would insure that no pictures of the concrete remain.
In the documentary I viewed in 1990 the narration stated that the core was difficult to photograph as it was being constructed inside the interior box columns ringing the core. Also that there was sometimes only a day or 2 where the advancing top edge of exposed aggregate and rebar were visible without forms. The videographers, while logging the tapes made from original 16mm footage, noted that the core had gained a mysterious quality. Partly from the problems and slow down from the butt welds of the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar,
and then from the difficulties presented from low light as the core face was up to 60 feet from the perimeter. The timing of the placement of the interior breakdown steel form and the standard wood forms framed against the inside of the interior box columns erected ahead of the concrete by as much as 7 floors, judged by the scarcity of photos, made the core difficult to photograph.
There were only 2 good images of the core that showed the exposed aggregate top of the poured concrete. One was a typical top level sunny day, probably the same day that the real clear color stills were taken of the perimeter columns and the spandrel plates, truss panels, all red lead coated silhouetted against the blue sky. That was a film clip that looked out to sea over the rough top of the pour, rebar protruding, panning across a 15-20 feet top of core wall near a corner.
The other image was a black and white still photo that looked inside the forms from a corner location, with a few sheets of the exterior form removed and out to the sky, not at the top level, showing the rebar protruding, looking up a sloping top of pour.
The narration indicated that the videograpers considered that BW photo to be the best, or despite it's slight underexposure (backlit to the side) at least showed both inner and outer forms with the rough aggregate top of pour. It also explained at that point the engineers requirement, which made a difficult job even worse, that the concrete AND the butt weld of the rebar reinforcing the cast concrete shear wall be made with a slope that opposed on each side for maximum torsion resistance.
There were some images looking through hallway openings in the shear wall upward in good light that showed the interior walls of the core and there was a segment that documented the precise fitting/welding needed to join the inside face of the hand fabricated, tapering interior box columns to the tapering concrete face of the core shear wall. It mentioned shimming between the steel and concrete at contact points to compensate for the inability to hold the 0.03 foot tolerance while showing a welder on scaffold working below an interior box column, floor beam joint.
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 3 2006, 06:06 PM)
here's an independent's autocad drawing of a typical floor plan, compared to nist's version of a typical floor plan: more honest than an perjurNIST.
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
You have an OBVIOUS weak argument...
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Those columns are HUGE!
i'll see if it hot links, too...
notice the deceptively thick looking core columns in the nist drawing. this gives the impression that the floor joists were less sturdy than they actually were. nist wants us to think that these towers(floors) would have fallen over if someone dropped a feather pillow on them.
nist wants us to believe that the towers were like a stack of boxes, one floor in height, instead of a metal weave which spanned three floors, for a 'one floor' of perimeter columns being a total of FIVE stories of floor pans, the middle, two below, and two above.
You have an OBVIOUS weak argument...
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Those columns are HUGE!
The main ingredients of any skyscraper are steel and concrete. Both are strong, but in different ways. Concrete bears more weight; steel can bend without breaking. The World Trade Center's supporting columns were made of steel, and the intense heat would have caused the girders to expand, distorting their shape and sapping their strength, leading to the collapse.
"It's better to build in reinforced concrete," said Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois. "If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable."
But reinforced concrete --concrete with steel bars inside --is heavier. When construction began on the World Trade Center in the late 1960's, concrete was not a viable option because it would have required huge, unwieldy pillars to support the towers' weight. But high-strength concrete developed in recent years has made it more practical.
"The trend is toward more concrete," Dr. Mir said. "The technology has substantially improved. An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer."
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm
In the core area, the stairwells and elevator shafts were enclosed by 2 hour fire-rated walls made of gypsum wallboard on steel studs.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...TradeCenter.htm
The 1,360-ft. New York City landmarks were among the first buildings to use gypsum board in what for multi-story construction is known as partition or cavity shaft walls — replacing concrete or masonry construction with wall sections as thin as 1.25 inches. Reports from eyewitnesses on upper World Trade Center levels have confirmed that the crash of the 767 aircraft obliterated large sections of the cores, including five of six stairwells (three per tower), while littering areas in floors below the impact zones with large quantities of drywall debris. Addressing the twin towers' core specifications, the BPS observes that the “use of impact-resistant enclosures around egress paths” should be subjected to more detailed evaluation.
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_c..._key/index.html
I would ask you to stop substituting one source which you feel is bias (FEMA or NIST) with another (Conspiracy sites.) Note I found evidence from sites which have nothing to do with any side of this debate.
"It's better to build in reinforced concrete," said Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois. "If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable."
But reinforced concrete --concrete with steel bars inside --is heavier. When construction began on the World Trade Center in the late 1960's, concrete was not a viable option because it would have required huge, unwieldy pillars to support the towers' weight. But high-strength concrete developed in recent years has made it more practical.
"The trend is toward more concrete," Dr. Mir said. "The technology has substantially improved. An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer."
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm
In the core area, the stairwells and elevator shafts were enclosed by 2 hour fire-rated walls made of gypsum wallboard on steel studs.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...TradeCenter.htm
The 1,360-ft. New York City landmarks were among the first buildings to use gypsum board in what for multi-story construction is known as partition or cavity shaft walls — replacing concrete or masonry construction with wall sections as thin as 1.25 inches. Reports from eyewitnesses on upper World Trade Center levels have confirmed that the crash of the 767 aircraft obliterated large sections of the cores, including five of six stairwells (three per tower), while littering areas in floors below the impact zones with large quantities of drywall debris. Addressing the twin towers' core specifications, the BPS observes that the “use of impact-resistant enclosures around egress paths” should be subjected to more detailed evaluation.
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_c..._key/index.html
I would ask you to stop substituting one source which you feel is bias (FEMA or NIST) with another (Conspiracy sites.) Note I found evidence from sites which have nothing to do with any side of this debate.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 3 2006, 02:27 PM)
that being the case, why did nist not just do an honest drawing?
they oversized them in the drawings. as with many things 'official lie', the verbal descriptions do not match the mathematical or graphic representations.
The oversized drawings show the ORIENTATION of the I-Beams that made up the columns.
The ORIENTATION is important for the MODELING.
In figure 6-12 you can see that the orientation of the columns is important for the modeling to be accurate.
They were not being lazy, they were being THOROUGH.
Arthur
they oversized them in the drawings. as with many things 'official lie', the verbal descriptions do not match the mathematical or graphic representations.
The oversized drawings show the ORIENTATION of the I-Beams that made up the columns.
The ORIENTATION is important for the MODELING.
In figure 6-12 you can see that the orientation of the columns is important for the modeling to be accurate.
They were not being lazy, they were being THOROUGH.
Arthur
Commen Sense, no matter how many times you post your "peer reviewed paper" its basic premise will remain as flawed as it was in the first place.
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
QUOTE (brian+Mar 3 2006, 09:00 PM)
Commen Sense, no matter how many times you post your "peer reviewed paper" its basic premise will remain as flawed as it was in the first place.
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
Why do you insist on repeating things already covered. I posted the NIST report which says the same thing and more. One of the "reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
You're lying again.
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
Why do you insist on repeating things already covered. I posted the NIST report which says the same thing and more. One of the "reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
You're lying again.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 3 2006, 12:53 AM)
Up close with Schneibster/Common Sense
Is it just me or does the guy look like he's about to have a heart attack?
LMAO
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
I missed that. Heh! It doesn't matter what the flooring is if the columns are gone.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 03:46 PM)
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 03:46 PM)
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
I missed that. Heh! It doesn't matter what the flooring is if the columns are gone.
brian, no matter how many times you post your "controlled demolition" its basic premise will remain as flawed as it was in the first place.
So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the cutting steel columns with explosives , you say.
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the cutting steel columns with explosives , you say.
A wild guess unsupported by evidence.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 3 2006, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Common Sense wrote
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Sorry, what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Again, I can't discern which photo you refer to.
There is quite a lot of evidence. Here is an image showing what can only be rebar.
Note the slight slope to the top of the rebar. That is the sloping joint required by the engineers in the tops of the rebar of the core wall. Note the slight curve to ALL of the vertical elements. Heavy steel won't quite act like high tensile rebar and it cetainly is much larger. Below is a photo taken perhaps one second earlier from the same place as above that shows the standing spire.
We see the west side of WTC 1, narrow face of the core. That is an interior box column, just outside the core wall, near the NW corner. It is 14 inches thick.
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
I missed that. Heh! It doesn't matter what the flooring is if the columns are gone.
Christophera adds the VERTICAL
The paper he posts just talks about the FLOORS.
Why he thinks FLOORS are Vertical is Beyond me.
I think the boy has a screw loose.
Arthur
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Common Sense wrote
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Sorry, what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Again, I can't discern which photo you refer to.
There is quite a lot of evidence. Here is an image showing what can only be rebar.
Note the slight slope to the top of the rebar. That is the sloping joint required by the engineers in the tops of the rebar of the core wall. Note the slight curve to ALL of the vertical elements. Heavy steel won't quite act like high tensile rebar and it cetainly is much larger. Below is a photo taken perhaps one second earlier from the same place as above that shows the standing spire.
We see the west side of WTC 1, narrow face of the core. That is an interior box column, just outside the core wall, near the NW corner. It is 14 inches thick.
Of course high strength concrete would have been used for the basement walls. In addition the core columns ended at the lowest level. They sat on top of a pyramid of similar steel laid horizontally and the whole pyramid and lower few yards of the column are encased in high strength concrete.
See this site
See this site
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 3 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 03:46 PM)
Here is a 1968 concrete specification schedule that shows where high strength concrete was used in the vertical flooring scheme to make a stronger diaphragm that would interact, or transfer load to the perimeter walls optimally by limiting wall flex over series of lightweight concrete floors between high strength floors.
VERTICAL FLOORING?
We don' need no STINKIN' Vertical flooring...............
Arthur
I missed that. Heh! It doesn't matter what the flooring is if the columns are gone.
Christophera adds the VERTICAL
The paper he posts just talks about the FLOORS.
Why he thinks FLOORS are Vertical is Beyond me.
I think the boy has a screw loose.
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 3 2006, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM)
FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Common Sense wrote
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Sorry, what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Again, I can't discern which photo you refer to.
There is quite a lot of evidence. Here is an image showing what can only be rebar.
Note the slight slope to the top of the rebar. That is the sloping joint required by the engineers in the tops of the rebar of the core wall. Note the slight curve to ALL of the vertical elements. Heavy steel won't quite act like high tensile rebar and it cetainly is much larger. Below is a photo taken perhaps one second earlier from the same place as above that shows the standing spire.
We see the west side of WTC 1, narrow face of the core. That is an interior box column, just outside the core wall, near the NW corner. It is 14 inches thick.
HAHAHA!!! Those photos show steel columns!!! Do you realize how far away that photo was taken!!! Do you realize those buildings in the foreground are about 50 stories high?
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE REBAR FROM THERE!
http://concretecore.741.com/
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
After collapse...
During construction...
I think it's the Conspiracy sites like the one you posted that are deceiving about tower core.
Greetings Common Sense,
I've removed the images from my quote of your post but retain them in my reply and add others to hopefully make a shorter, less chaotic presentation.
The image below does not show the position of the steel columns as they were in the structure. I know them to be interior box columns
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc066.jpg
Below is a ground zero photo showing a corner area of one core behind the furthest excavator. Notice that there are no columns to the right of the remnants of the core.
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc044.jpg
Here is a notated zoom of the same or similar image,
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
The taper of the interior core columns on the left can be seen, then to the right a huge block of featureless material, the concrete core, right of that is a stairwell. Right of that, inside the core area, nothing.
In the below photo we see the outer tube framework falling away, what must be the top of the spire shape remains, most of the core has already dropped, but behind the steel, is a sliver of steel reinforced, concrete core wall, unseen.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Here is that same wall face lower, from the side with a sectional view of the edge of the shear wall.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
Below is a link to the top of the tower showing the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly, Outside of it are the tops of the interior box columns. Vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. That steel is elevator guide rail. The elevators necessarily advanced as closely as possible behind the top. A few times they are near the top in photos, mostly they are below the top of the concrete pour by at least 50 feet, but unseen as is the core.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
You seem to be straining to see something which isn't there. Re-bar is encased in concrete. Those are some of the many pipes/conduits etc.. carrying water, electrical and other etc.. to the upper floors. Re-bar is very small compared to that huge excavator. It would look like hair in that photo. Those are clearly larger.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. Everything EXCEPT the that CT site say the building didn't have a reinforced concrete core. EVERYTHING. Even the other CT sites. The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Common Sense wrote
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction aswell.
Sorry, what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
Again, I can't discern which photo you refer to.
There is quite a lot of evidence. Here is an image showing what can only be rebar.
Note the slight slope to the top of the rebar. That is the sloping joint required by the engineers in the tops of the rebar of the core wall. Note the slight curve to ALL of the vertical elements. Heavy steel won't quite act like high tensile rebar and it cetainly is much larger. Below is a photo taken perhaps one second earlier from the same place as above that shows the standing spire.
We see the west side of WTC 1, narrow face of the core. That is an interior box column, just outside the core wall, near the NW corner. It is 14 inches thick.
HAHAHA!!! Those photos show steel columns!!! Do you realize how far away that photo was taken!!! Do you realize those buildings in the foreground are about 50 stories high?
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE REBAR FROM THERE!
This is rebar...
Common Sense wrote
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction a swell.
I would still like to know what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
And, again I would like to know what photo you refer to?
The below is a steel column, just as I said originally. The image is included to show scale. The column is 14 inches thick.
The below image taken a second later from the same camera shows elements too fine for heavy structural steel as shown above. Note the sloping tops of the fine steel elements.
If I assert the towers had a concrete core, and I produce a photo like the below which is the core and simply does not appear as structural steel; and also refer to a photo above that shows strange sloping tops of vertical steel element, totally uncharacteristic of structural steel, as can be seen in the top photo where only vertical and horizontal elements are seen; then I've supported my contention with evidence and done so logically.
BTW, when discussing ALL diaphram floors of a tower, that vary over the height of the tower, the vertical scheme of their varying strengths is a proper term.
Is that a problem or an important issue to you?
The rebar is 7500 feet from the camera +-. By the pixelation in the image you can see that we can just barely discern the rebar, so you are not far off. With the many vertical elements, the rebar becomes more visable and also that many vertical elements with that close spacing cannot be termed heavy structural steel.
The only thing you have as real evidence is a document which isn't really clear about the ACTUAL construction but merely states that what is put in place has to MEET the requirements of reinforced steel. It was created well before the actual construction a swell.
I would still like to know what document do you refer to? The only one I've posted is the concrete schedule from the construction period.
Common Sense wrote
Heh!, You can see the steel peeling away in the photo. No concrete at all. I think your stretching it quite a bit.
And, again I would like to know what photo you refer to?
The below is a steel column, just as I said originally. The image is included to show scale. The column is 14 inches thick.
The below image taken a second later from the same camera shows elements too fine for heavy structural steel as shown above. Note the sloping tops of the fine steel elements.
If I assert the towers had a concrete core, and I produce a photo like the below which is the core and simply does not appear as structural steel; and also refer to a photo above that shows strange sloping tops of vertical steel element, totally uncharacteristic of structural steel, as can be seen in the top photo where only vertical and horizontal elements are seen; then I've supported my contention with evidence and done so logically.
BTW, when discussing ALL diaphram floors of a tower, that vary over the height of the tower, the vertical scheme of their varying strengths is a proper term.
Is that a problem or an important issue to you?
The rebar is 7500 feet from the camera +-. By the pixelation in the image you can see that we can just barely discern the rebar, so you are not far off. With the many vertical elements, the rebar becomes more visable and also that many vertical elements with that close spacing cannot be termed heavy structural steel.
Christophera
You put that picture of the floor specifications after your long diatribe about REINFORCED CONCRETE.
But there is NOTHING in that about reinforced concrete.
Just the various weights of the flooring.
Which we all knew were concrete.
What's your point, if not to create disinformation?
As to "Was there a reinforced concrete core?"
Well since there is EXTENSIVE literature about spraying them with Blaze Shield, they COULDN'T be encased in CONCRETE.
NOT one picture has surfaced of them tying rebar up, putting up molds, taking molds down, etc etc.
Now they would have done this for 100 floors, a couple of hundred feet each, and yet NOT ONE PICTURE????
Further, look at the EXTENSIVE pictures of the debris, Rebar wouldn't break and rebar would have kept the concrete from being pulverized as extensively as it was.
So I ask you, why NO PICTURES of 110 floors worth of REBAR in the pile???
Go find another loony story to peddle, this one's got no legs.
Arthur
You put that picture of the floor specifications after your long diatribe about REINFORCED CONCRETE.
But there is NOTHING in that about reinforced concrete.
Just the various weights of the flooring.
Which we all knew were concrete.
What's your point, if not to create disinformation?
As to "Was there a reinforced concrete core?"
Well since there is EXTENSIVE literature about spraying them with Blaze Shield, they COULDN'T be encased in CONCRETE.
NOT one picture has surfaced of them tying rebar up, putting up molds, taking molds down, etc etc.
Now they would have done this for 100 floors, a couple of hundred feet each, and yet NOT ONE PICTURE????
Further, look at the EXTENSIVE pictures of the debris, Rebar wouldn't break and rebar would have kept the concrete from being pulverized as extensively as it was.
So I ask you, why NO PICTURES of 110 floors worth of REBAR in the pile???
Go find another loony story to peddle, this one's got no legs.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 12:45 AM)
Christophera
You put that picture of the floor specifications after your long diatribe about REINFORCED CONCRETE.
But there is NOTHING in that about reinforced concrete.
Just the various weights of the flooring.
Which we all knew were concrete.
What's your point, if not to create disinformation?
As to "Was there a reinforced concrete core?"
Well since there is EXTENSIVE literature about spraying them with Blaze Shield, they COULDN'T be encased in CONCRETE.
NOT one picture has surfaced of them tying rebar up, putting up molds, taking molds down, etc etc.
Now they would have done this for 100 floors, a couple of hundred feet each, and yet NOT ONE PICTURE????
Further, look at the EXTENSIVE pictures of the debris, Rebar wouldn't break and rebar would have kept the concrete from being pulverized as extensively as it was.
So I ask you, why NO PICTURES of 110 floors worth of REBAR in the pile???
Go find another loony story to peddle, this one's got no legs.
Arthur
My last post has raw evidence and reasonable definitions of what is seen.
Conside that the archives of construction photos have been sifted of the concrete core photos so we can find none.
I believe that we can see quite a bit of rebar in this photo. On the left. That on the right is not of the tower.
Try this link for a giant image.
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
This image shows the base of the concrete shear wall with high tensile steel rebar protruding. The nature of the high tensile steel rebar to coil radically when subjected to great stresses should be fairly obvious, if you know how high tensile steel reacts.
You put that picture of the floor specifications after your long diatribe about REINFORCED CONCRETE.
But there is NOTHING in that about reinforced concrete.
Just the various weights of the flooring.
Which we all knew were concrete.
What's your point, if not to create disinformation?
As to "Was there a reinforced concrete core?"
Well since there is EXTENSIVE literature about spraying them with Blaze Shield, they COULDN'T be encased in CONCRETE.
NOT one picture has surfaced of them tying rebar up, putting up molds, taking molds down, etc etc.
Now they would have done this for 100 floors, a couple of hundred feet each, and yet NOT ONE PICTURE????
Further, look at the EXTENSIVE pictures of the debris, Rebar wouldn't break and rebar would have kept the concrete from being pulverized as extensively as it was.
So I ask you, why NO PICTURES of 110 floors worth of REBAR in the pile???
Go find another loony story to peddle, this one's got no legs.
Arthur
My last post has raw evidence and reasonable definitions of what is seen.
Conside that the archives of construction photos have been sifted of the concrete core photos so we can find none.
I believe that we can see quite a bit of rebar in this photo. On the left. That on the right is not of the tower.
Try this link for a giant image.
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
This image shows the base of the concrete shear wall with high tensile steel rebar protruding. The nature of the high tensile steel rebar to coil radically when subjected to great stresses should be fairly obvious, if you know how high tensile steel reacts.
Christophera
Of course there is SOME rebar. But look at ALL the FEMA pictures and its clear that Rebar is not common, particularly in the UPPER part of the pile.
See the entire base and subbasement. This would have use rebar extensively.
I can also see them using it in the below ground floors, where the WEIGHT of the concrete would not be an issue. But there is NO EVIDENCE that the towers used Reinforced Concrete cores.
Arthur
Of course there is SOME rebar. But look at ALL the FEMA pictures and its clear that Rebar is not common, particularly in the UPPER part of the pile.
See the entire base and subbasement. This would have use rebar extensively.
I can also see them using it in the below ground floors, where the WEIGHT of the concrete would not be an issue. But there is NO EVIDENCE that the towers used Reinforced Concrete cores.
Arthur
Of course the basement had tons of rebar and, .......... we cannot trust FEMA, nor any other source because none explain free fall, and that must be explained. Concrete can fracture and fall immediately with minimal energy applied whereas steel requires huge amounts of energy to disintegrate.
The below image is the core of WTC 2 and there is no structural steel to be seen at all.
The above with consideration of the need for an explanation for free fall, becomes good evidence for a steel reinforced concrete tube in the towers. The "tube in a tube" construction term finally makes sense.
The "bundled tube" construction term does not make sense by the above photo. And that photo IS of the core. Perhaps almost as much as 1/2 the core as it was never visible before.
The below image is the core of WTC 2 and there is no structural steel to be seen at all.
The above with consideration of the need for an explanation for free fall, becomes good evidence for a steel reinforced concrete tube in the towers. The "tube in a tube" construction term finally makes sense.
The "bundled tube" construction term does not make sense by the above photo. And that photo IS of the core. Perhaps almost as much as 1/2 the core as it was never visible before.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 3 2006, 09:09 PM)
[QUOTE=Christophera,Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM] FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
Hi,
Are you saying that the "Massive Box Columns" (as marked in red) are really elevator guide rails?
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238
Hi,
Are you saying that the "Massive Box Columns" (as marked in red) are really elevator guide rails?
It should not be too hard to verify exactly which structual part(s) of the building is represented in the "spire". All we need is a comparison photo of the building still standing taken from the same perspective.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
oooops....unintended post removed by RC.
.
.
[QUOTE=Christophera,Mar 3 2006, 09:09 PM] [QUOTE=Christophera,Mar 3 2006, 06:27 AM] FEMA And Others Deceive About Tower Core, It was steel reinforced cast concrete.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hereward,Mar 4 2006, 01:24 AM]
Hi,
Are you saying that the "Massive Box Columns" (as marked in red) are really elevator guide rails? [/QUOTE]
No, the columns marked in red are interior box columns. The unmarked smaller vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails.
Here is a notated, zoomed image. I did not manipulate this image. Ironically, whoever did, was making it for a site that believed in the steel core columns, but they couldn't find any columns INSIDE the core.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyO...487518414701238 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hereward,Mar 4 2006, 01:24 AM]
Hi,
Are you saying that the "Massive Box Columns" (as marked in red) are really elevator guide rails? [/QUOTE]
No, the columns marked in red are interior box columns. The unmarked smaller vertical steel inside the core are elevator guide rails.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 01:41 AM)
It should not be too hard to verify exactly which structual part(s) of the building is represented in the "spire". All we need is a comparison photo of the building still standing taken from the same perspective.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
I have another image that I notated. Notice the centers on the interior box columns that ring the core. Note the distance between interior box columns.
You will see it is about the same as the rectangular silhouetted square at the righthand base of the spire.
Meaning that the spire is an interior box column. The perimeter columns have 22 inches between them.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
I have another image that I notated. Notice the centers on the interior box columns that ring the core. Note the distance between interior box columns.
You will see it is about the same as the rectangular silhouetted square at the righthand base of the spire.
Meaning that the spire is an interior box column. The perimeter columns have 22 inches between them.
There is NO QUESTION it is a CORE column.
The Perimeter Columns were TREE structures.
They came in THREES and were staggered, so you would never get a failure that would leave a spire like that.
The Corner Columns, the only place that had those small grid like connections are unique as well. (red line in previous picture)
What IS clear though is there is NO concrete reinforcing. Just skeleton.
Arthur
The Perimeter Columns were TREE structures.
They came in THREES and were staggered, so you would never get a failure that would leave a spire like that.
The Corner Columns, the only place that had those small grid like connections are unique as well. (red line in previous picture)
What IS clear though is there is NO concrete reinforcing. Just skeleton.
Arthur
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 01:41 AM)
It should not be too hard to verify exactly which structual part(s) of the building is represented in the "spire". All we need is a comparison photo of the building still standing taken from the same perspective.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
Hi hereward, all!
We should remember THREE things:
(1) The expanding 'ground-impact' CLOUDS have reached a distance which suggests that floor/perimeter structures are ALREADY ON the ground;
(2) The perimeter columns were not designed to stand on their own for any HEIGHT/TIME even under 'normal' winds/stresses; and
(3) The HEIGHT of that remnant is TOO great for it to be any perimeter structure, because it would not have been able to stand anyway, let alone withstand the assaults of the 'ground-impact' cloud/air EXPANSION forces (only short/stubby bits of the perimeter columns would 'stand', and probably only if 'buttressed' by the debris pile.
So it looks to me like the CORE structure and a 'spire' of remnant at one corner.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Can anyone assist?
I have always assumed (contrary to many conspiracy sites) that this spire was part of the perimeter columns. I still think that makes more sense. It's possible however that the outer edge of the core is also part of the composite image.
This is one point of fact that we should be able to conclusively determine from existing photos - it's just a question of finding suitable images and then carefully measuring against the spire image.
Hi hereward, all!
We should remember THREE things:
(1) The expanding 'ground-impact' CLOUDS have reached a distance which suggests that floor/perimeter structures are ALREADY ON the ground;
(2) The perimeter columns were not designed to stand on their own for any HEIGHT/TIME even under 'normal' winds/stresses; and
(3) The HEIGHT of that remnant is TOO great for it to be any perimeter structure, because it would not have been able to stand anyway, let alone withstand the assaults of the 'ground-impact' cloud/air EXPANSION forces (only short/stubby bits of the perimeter columns would 'stand', and probably only if 'buttressed' by the debris pile.
So it looks to me like the CORE structure and a 'spire' of remnant at one corner.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 02:22 AM)
There is NO QUESTION it is a CORE column.
The Perimeter Columns were TREES structures.
They came in THREES and were staggered, so you would never get a failure that would leave a spire like that.
The Corner Columns, the only place that had those small grid like connections are unique as well. (red line in previous picture)
What IS clear though is there is NO concrete reinforcing. Just skeleton.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Excellent point!
RC.
.
The Perimeter Columns were TREES structures.
They came in THREES and were staggered, so you would never get a failure that would leave a spire like that.
The Corner Columns, the only place that had those small grid like connections are unique as well. (red line in previous picture)
What IS clear though is there is NO concrete reinforcing. Just skeleton.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Excellent point!
RC.
.
Holly son of a mother!
This has to be, by far the longest thread I have ever been to on this forum.
This has to be, by far the longest thread I have ever been to on this forum.
Peeling away steel core columns
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
RC,
You need to empty your PM folder (both IN and OUT).
check a bunch of the old ones and hit delete
Arthur
You need to empty your PM folder (both IN and OUT).
check a bunch of the old ones and hit delete
Arthur
OK, I have taken my own advice - it turns out that the images already posted here have most of the answers. I am going to lay this out slowly and carefully:
First, have look at images below (i have added one, sourced from wikipedia).
Image 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the following:
In Image 1, the building on the left has the antenna - this is WTC 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center) , which was the second tower to fall.
In the next 2 images we see a remnant of a tower. Which tower? Well, we know that the south tower (WTC 2 - no antenna) fell first. You can see no other tower, so this cannot be WTC 2 - therefore it must be WTC 1.
You'll notice that the perspective of Image 1 Vs. Image 2 is slightly different. Image 2 is taken from a higher vantage point and the camera is more to the left.
Now look at Image 4. This shows one tower still standing on the left. Once again, simple logic tells us that the standing tower must be WTC 1. On the right, where WTC 2 once stood, we see smoke and billowing clouds and a structure of some kind, partially hidden in the smoke.
Image 2 and Image 4 were taken from the same angle but Image 2 has a higher elevation. Comparison of images 2 and 4 suggests that the tallest part of the spire matches the right-front corner of the tower. This does not support the theory that the spire is a part of the core.
Now lets have another look at images 4 and 1. In Image 1 you'll see that behind the south tower and slightly to the left there is a medium sized black building (part of the WTC complex, let's call it "Building X"). Behind and to the right is a larger building (WTC 7?).
Now look again at Image 4. What do you see in the smoke where WTC 2 once stood? I say it is "Building X".
SUMMARY
1. The "spire" (Image 2) belongs to WTC 1.
2. The "spire" is probably a corner perimeter column.
3. The "core still standing" (Image 4) is, in fact, "Building X", seen through smoke.
I would expect that someone on the board can tell me the correct name of Building X - I'm going to have a rest now.
(: cheers
First, have look at images below (i have added one, sourced from wikipedia).
Image 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the following:
In Image 1, the building on the left has the antenna - this is WTC 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center) , which was the second tower to fall.
In the next 2 images we see a remnant of a tower. Which tower? Well, we know that the south tower (WTC 2 - no antenna) fell first. You can see no other tower, so this cannot be WTC 2 - therefore it must be WTC 1.
You'll notice that the perspective of Image 1 Vs. Image 2 is slightly different. Image 2 is taken from a higher vantage point and the camera is more to the left.
Now look at Image 4. This shows one tower still standing on the left. Once again, simple logic tells us that the standing tower must be WTC 1. On the right, where WTC 2 once stood, we see smoke and billowing clouds and a structure of some kind, partially hidden in the smoke.
Image 2 and Image 4 were taken from the same angle but Image 2 has a higher elevation. Comparison of images 2 and 4 suggests that the tallest part of the spire matches the right-front corner of the tower. This does not support the theory that the spire is a part of the core.
Now lets have another look at images 4 and 1. In Image 1 you'll see that behind the south tower and slightly to the left there is a medium sized black building (part of the WTC complex, let's call it "Building X"). Behind and to the right is a larger building (WTC 7?).
Now look again at Image 4. What do you see in the smoke where WTC 2 once stood? I say it is "Building X".
SUMMARY
1. The "spire" (Image 2) belongs to WTC 1.
2. The "spire" is probably a corner perimeter column.
3. The "core still standing" (Image 4) is, in fact, "Building X", seen through smoke.
I would expect that someone on the board can tell me the correct name of Building X - I'm going to have a rest now.
(: cheers
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
You are wrong on 2. It is impossible for it to be a perimeter column for the reason adoucette said. You COULDN'T get a perimeter column to stand more than maybe one story because it was a TREE of THREE columns. That's why you always see the columns falling in a block.
That "Spire" has one column section standing about ten or more stories high. Look how tall it is...
The piece that's still somewhat together is about 47 stories because that's how high building 7 is and from this photo it seems about the same...
.
That "Spire" has one column section standing about ten or more stories high. Look how tall it is...
The piece that's still somewhat together is about 47 stories because that's how high building 7 is and from this photo it seems about the same...
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
Darn! You got me! I DO copy and paste from MY OWN SITE. HEHEHEHE.
SOPHISTRY!
OBFUSCATION!
Heh!
I think its time to head to the library to check out Snoonian and Czarnecki's article...
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Here is another shot of the spire and adjacent interior box columns that were under the spire and the concrete core wall behind it.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 04:00 AM)
Here is another shot of the spire and adjacent interior box columns that were under the spire and the concrete core wall behind it.
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 03:43 AM)
You are wrong on 2. It is impossible for it to be a perimeter column for the reason adoucette said. You COULDN'T get a perimeter column to stand more than maybe one story because it was a TREE of THREE columns. That's why you always see the columns falling in a block.
That "Spire" has one column section standing about ten or more stories high. Look how tall it is...
The piece that's still somewhat together is about 47 stories because that's how high building 7 is and from this photo it seems about the same...
Yeah but what about a corner column? I'm saying that the tallest pointy bit is a corner column, the rest is a section of the perimeter tube which stayed erect for a few moments after the building imploded.
Only for a few moments however, so clearly this structure was rather fragile, which is a further indication that it is the perimeter tube which was not designed to stand on its own.
If it was part of the core, wouldn't you expect it to be a bit more robust?
(: hereward
That "Spire" has one column section standing about ten or more stories high. Look how tall it is...
The piece that's still somewhat together is about 47 stories because that's how high building 7 is and from this photo it seems about the same...
Yeah but what about a corner column? I'm saying that the tallest pointy bit is a corner column, the rest is a section of the perimeter tube which stayed erect for a few moments after the building imploded.
Only for a few moments however, so clearly this structure was rather fragile, which is a further indication that it is the perimeter tube which was not designed to stand on its own.
If it was part of the core, wouldn't you expect it to be a bit more robust?
(: hereward
There is a short documentary on the construction of the WTC towers which you can download from here:
http://www.question911.com/links.php
"Building the World Trade Center.wmv" - 47 Mb
I watched this yesterday, and there was no indication of an internal reinforced concrete tower, but plenty of images of box columns.
http://www.question911.com/links.php
"Building the World Trade Center.wmv" - 47 Mb
I watched this yesterday, and there was no indication of an internal reinforced concrete tower, but plenty of images of box columns.
That's exactly what I'm saying. It ESPECIALY CAN'T be the corner perimeter column because THERE WAS NO corner perimeter column.
It was two columns, not one.
It was two columns, not one.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 03:00 AM)
RC,
You need to empty your PM folder (both IN and OUT).
check a bunch of the old ones and hit delete
Arthur
Hiho adoucette!
My, but you ARE observant, heh! I hardly ever use the thing, so no wonder I lost track!hehehe. Thanks for the heads-up re the FULL status, mate. Cheers!
RC.
.
You need to empty your PM folder (both IN and OUT).
check a bunch of the old ones and hit delete
Arthur
Hiho adoucette!
My, but you ARE observant, heh! I hardly ever use the thing, so no wonder I lost track!hehehe. Thanks for the heads-up re the FULL status, mate. Cheers!
RC.
.
I'll try to post some references regarding molten aluminum, interactions of aluminum with glass, etc. I do a lot of materials science work and some of what I state is just obvious to me from my experience. I'm not trying to intentionally make claims without evidence.
Here's an example of glowing aluminum in an induction heater. This is a special type of induction setup known as levitation. It's not my page but I do similar work with induction heaters and graphite furnaces and have melted aluminum and many other metals, even tungsten. You should see what molten tungsten looks like.
Note that the aluminum glows orange, not silver. It returns to its characteristic silver color near its melting point at 660C.
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/WofMatE/AltProcess.htm
.
Here's an example of glowing aluminum in an induction heater. This is a special type of induction setup known as levitation. It's not my page but I do similar work with induction heaters and graphite furnaces and have melted aluminum and many other metals, even tungsten. You should see what molten tungsten looks like.
Note that the aluminum glows orange, not silver. It returns to its characteristic silver color near its melting point at 660C.
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/WofMatE/AltProcess.htm
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'hexa'
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'hexa'
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
Darn! You got me! I DO copy and paste from MY OWN SITE. HEHEHEHE.
SOPHISTRY!
OBFUSCATION!
Heh!
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
QUOTE
The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23). Also, the exterior of each tower had closely spaced columns made of aluminum and steel that provide the most support for the tower. To buffer extreme winds that come from the Hudson River and the occasional tropical storm, a shock-absorbing system was developed where the ends of each floor beam acts like an automobile's shock (Yamasaki 116).
Snoonian, Deborah and Czarnecki, John E. "World Trade Center's Robust Towers Succumb to Terrorism." Architectural Record Oct. 2001: 22-28.
Snoonian, Deborah and Czarnecki, John E. "World Trade Center's Robust Towers Succumb to Terrorism." Architectural Record Oct. 2001: 22-28.
I think its time to head to the library to check out Snoonian and Czarnecki's article...
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 05:55 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Look at the 78th floor you fu<king moron. Light fire. Now look at the 81st floor, and the 82nd, and the 80th. Heh!
Notice how Faux cuts the NIST photo...
The blue lines are from the NIST you moron.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
If you're trying to say that later in the day the fires lessened it only supports the NIST final report which says the trusses cooled and contracted pulling in the perimeter columns.
THANKS FOR HELPING PROVE NORMAL COLLAPSE FAUX/MEL!
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Look at the 78th floor you fu<king moron. Light fire. Now look at the 81st floor, and the 82nd, and the 80th. Heh!
Notice how Faux cuts the NIST photo...
The blue lines are from the NIST you moron.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
If you're trying to say that later in the day the fires lessened it only supports the NIST final report which says the trusses cooled and contracted pulling in the perimeter columns.
THANKS FOR HELPING PROVE NORMAL COLLAPSE FAUX/MEL!
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 01:23 AM)
Of course the basement had tons of rebar and, .......... we cannot trust FEMA, nor any other source because none explain free fall, and that must be explained. Concrete can fracture and fall immediately with minimal energy applied whereas steel requires huge amounts of energy to disintegrate.
The below image is the core of WTC 2 and there is no structural steel to be seen at all.
The above with consideration of the need for an explanation for free fall, becomes good evidence for a steel reinforced concrete tube in the towers. The "tube in a tube" construction term finally makes sense.
The "bundled tube" construction term does not make sense by the above photo. And that photo IS of the core. Perhaps almost as much as 1/2 the core as it was never visible before.
I think that dark shape may be nothing to do with the tower - it is possibly the silhouette of another building seen side on.
this one perhaps?
.jpg)
The below image is the core of WTC 2 and there is no structural steel to be seen at all.
The above with consideration of the need for an explanation for free fall, becomes good evidence for a steel reinforced concrete tube in the towers. The "tube in a tube" construction term finally makes sense.
The "bundled tube" construction term does not make sense by the above photo. And that photo IS of the core. Perhaps almost as much as 1/2 the core as it was never visible before.
I think that dark shape may be nothing to do with the tower - it is possibly the silhouette of another building seen side on.
this one perhaps?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 06:02 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 05:55 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Look at the 78th floor you fu<king moron. Light fire. Now look at the 81st floor, and the 82nd, and the 80th. Heh!
Notice how Faux cuts the NIST photo...
The blue lines are from the NIST you moron.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'... (and the document you got them from).
The raging smoke pictures from the south face of WTC 7 must be presenting a difficult scenario for YOU PEOPLE.
Thanks.
BTW - you seem to be up late aren't you?.... for living on the east coast? (It must be 3:00 am according to my time here)??? What??? Can't sleep?
Must be working the night-shift, eh?
Don't fret... the way you are going, soon you'll be in the Alaska division with ah_t.
Well, some of us have to sleep sometime... YAWN...
Manyana.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
Consider how reasonable a concrete core is. There is nothing outrageous about it at all. In fact, the new towers will be built with concrete cores again. Somehow the notion they didn't before but will later, gives more credence to the steel core theory, which has no raw evidence whatsoever. The only thing some might consider outrageous is that there is no official record for it. Well, the mayor of NY took the WTC documents, including the plans and will not return them.
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
Are we not questioning official information here? Are we unsatisfied with the explanations for things as profound as free fall and total pulverization? If the answer is yes, then why is this an issue because this information of the concrete core is supported with raw evidence and citations of others that know of it and what they know.
There are lots of people that know of the concrete and have written of it. I'll provide some site urls and excerpts at the end.
Realize that this is not a hairbrained notion such as a "missle pod" attached to a plane, nor is does it propose that there were no planes and holograms were what we saw. There is no assertion that the planes were remotely controlled while concrete is the most common building material on the planet.
A strawman is basically an attack on the weak points of an issue distracting from the significance of it. The concrete core is strongly evidenced and creates a possible explanation for free fall, concrete can fracture and fall. We can understand how a false issue could be introduced to provide a target for accusations of fraud and marginalization later such as those I've mentioned above, which have all but fallen away.
I was banned on Lets Roll for not returning after I was told to stop calling people disinfo agents. There was a few posters there that would not use reason and logic with the evidence and utilized the strawman in small groups over and over. Constantly failing to respond to very reasonable questions concerning the core they supposedly supported by default. Multiple steel core columns. I asked over and over and over, Why are the 47, 1,300 foot tempered steel core columns not seen in this photo and all others?
Not one ever did provide a reasonable answer. I explained why to them, they still couldn't come up with a decent answer. What I said is that IF, the steel core columns were there and explosives removed them, the only way to make them small enough to not be captured in images, then the event had the wrong appearance. Cutting steel with high explosives requires massive overloads or bulky, difficult to install shape charges, very loud, sharp. Fairly heavy pieces would be thrown long distances. Simple math says that as many as 1500 cuts might have to be performed to make the long steel columns disappear from photos, this would have turned the explosion into a massive horizontal event whereas what we saw was well contained and uniform, moreso than most controlled demolition's.
What we saw had optimally placed and distributed explosive. So well done, uniform and contained, that we can be told it was a collapse and we'll actually argue about it even after no investigations were allowed, let alone done by due process, and steel is shipped over seas in a hurry. We've never seen anything like what happened to the towers before, we've never been in a situation like this as a people. We need to loose our fear of government and of each other. We need to work together.
When I see disinfos in action, I call them on it, ...... so I left Lets Roll. Only to return after a few months to discover I was blocked from viewing the site, still am.
Phil Jayhan is a good man and remembers hearing that the floors of the WTC had forced evacuations before concrete was poured. The documentary I saw in 1990 had that information too, plus much more.
Since I've had some experience with high explosives, above ground cushion blasting with anflo, and I studied for my blasters license and studied demolition, never tried to apply after I saw how local regulations effectively outlawed it, but that, and my steel/concrete experience give me an edge in using what I remember from the 1990 construction documentary.
The concrete core is not a strawman to be knocked down later. It has survived years and only gathers more and more proof as time passes and I keep arguing in support of what I know.
Didn't mean to get into such a long diatribe or rant but I felt like folks here were due a little about who I am an what I've done, what's under the bridge, that puts me in a position to competently present this information.
Here are a few statements of people who know about the concrete core. There are some contradictions, easily equa to the confusion natural and inherent with a ruse or fraud upon a group, us, but the support is solid for the concrete core in a situation where people are working from memory or a little more. Oh, one last image,
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0549,murphy,70685,6.html
Reports on the FDNY response to 9-11 generally agree that, as the FDNY-commissioned McKinsey study put it, "Chief officers considered a limited, localized collapse of the towers possible, but did not think that they would collapse entirely." For some of the fire officers, that confidence might have been based on a misconception about how the towers were built: The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core,
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html
These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vM8Dqd...s&ct=clnk&cd=40
It was designed as a tube building that included a
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Look at the 78th floor you fu<king moron. Light fire. Now look at the 81st floor, and the 82nd, and the 80th. Heh!
Notice how Faux cuts the NIST photo...
The blue lines are from the NIST you moron.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'... (and the document you got them from).
The raging smoke pictures from the south face of WTC 7 must be presenting a difficult scenario for YOU PEOPLE.
Thanks.
BTW - you seem to be up late aren't you?.... for living on the east coast? (It must be 3:00 am according to my time here)??? What??? Can't sleep?
Must be working the night-shift, eh?
Don't fret... the way you are going, soon you'll be in the Alaska division with ah_t.
Well, some of us have to sleep sometime... YAWN...
Manyana.
Dumb a$$, It's 1:35 AM and I'm old enough to stay up. You can go to bed if you have to. No cookies and milk for you! Straight to bed!
WELCOME TO:
THE MILLENIUM HILTON HOTEL
THE MILLENIUM HILTON HOTEL
More Images of the Millenium Hilton Hotel:
wtc research
Compare the above and below images, then consider the following question:
if that dark silhouteed shape is not the Millenium Hilton, then where the hell is it?
I hope this puts the final nail in the coffin of the "core still standing" disinformation scam.
signing off
(: hereward
wtc research
Compare the above and below images, then consider the following question:
if that dark silhouteed shape is not the Millenium Hilton, then where the hell is it?
I hope this puts the final nail in the coffin of the "core still standing" disinformation scam.
signing off
(: hereward
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 06:42 AM)
WELCOME TO:
THE MILLENIUM HILTON HOTEL
1) that's not the right angle. The pointy building on the left isn't there. in the other shot. I think one is taken from the east while the other from the south.
2) That building looks much smaller
3) You're on the right track though.
THE MILLENIUM HILTON HOTEL
1) that's not the right angle. The pointy building on the left isn't there. in the other shot. I think one is taken from the east while the other from the south.
2) That building looks much smaller
3) You're on the right track though.
Now that I see the other building in the other photo I think that is it. Still not 100% sure though. Maybe 75%.
It might be One Liberty Plaza. Church Street bordered the west side of One Liberty and the east side of the towers. One Liberty was also a little over half the height of the towers. It's the dark building seen just to the right of the south tower in the first pic below.
In this photo, One Liberty appears a little short because the shot was taken closer to the tower and the camera was pointed up a little. The two buildings in the foreground (with the green color caps) are the same as those seen in a pic posted here earlier. I think those were called the world financial centers.
In this photo, One Liberty appears a little short because the shot was taken closer to the tower and the camera was pointed up a little. The two buildings in the foreground (with the green color caps) are the same as those seen in a pic posted here earlier. I think those were called the world financial centers.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'hexa'
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
Hi Confused2,
Why don't we hear the answer from our wise Schneibster which he had promised you.
I am sure he should be wise enough to provide us a Scientific answer that can be found in a more recent and respectable physics text book (or some other sources) than perhaps the slightly antiquated Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68142
Well... looks like our old friend 'Mr. Schneibster' has once again been exposed in the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread. Anyone else been following that?
Gee, 'Kerri', can you not get some help for your 'man'?
I am sorry for the circumstances you must endure, but we understand your predicament.
Why don't you just 'axe' his computer?
If anyone else has been following the 'Circular Polarization of Light' thread... it is quite obvious that Schneibster is waaaaayyyyy out of his league on this board.
Ohhhh, hello CS---x95fersyt ... special 'guest'.
Don't you know when you're done?
But lot's of attention to this concrete core theory, now, Ehhh?
Hereward... be careful
There were NO 'concrete walls' in the central core of the WTC.
This is a complete strawman issue being set up to be knocked down
CS --- Give it up, Schneiby... you (like ah_t) have been exposed, you are dismissed, son.
Hasta Manyana
Consider how reasonable a concrete core is. There is nothing outrageous about it at all. In fact, the new towers will be built with concrete cores again. Somehow the notion they didn't before but will later, gives more credence to the steel core theory, which has no raw evidence whatsoever. The only thing some might consider outrageous is that there is no official record for it. Well, the mayor of NY took the WTC documents, including the plans and will not return them.
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
Are we not questioning official information here? Are we unsatisfied with the explanations for things as profound as free fall and total pulverization? If the answer is yes, then why is this an issue because this information of the concrete core is supported with raw evidence and citations of others that know of it and what they know.
There are lots of people that know of the concrete and have written of it. I'll provide some site urls and excerpts at the end.
Realize that this is not a hairbrained notion such as a "missle pod" attached to a plane, nor is does it propose that there were no planes and holograms were what we saw. There is no assertion that the planes were remotely controlled while concrete is the most common building material on the planet.
A strawman is basically an attack on the weak points of an issue distracting from the significance of it. The concrete core is strongly evidenced and creates a possible explanation for free fall, concrete can fracture and fall. We can understand how a false issue could be introduced to provide a target for accusations of fraud and marginalization later such as those I've mentioned above, which have all but fallen away.
I was banned on Lets Roll for not returning after I was told to stop calling people disinfo agents. There was a few posters there that would not use reason and logic with the evidence and utilized the strawman in small groups over and over. Constantly failing to respond to very reasonable questions concerning the core they supposedly supported by default. Multiple steel core columns. I asked over and over and over, Why are the 47, 1,300 foot tempered steel core columns not seen in this photo and all others?
Not one ever did provide a reasonable answer. I explained why to them, they still couldn't come up with a decent answer. What I said is that IF, the steel core columns were there and explosives removed them, the only way to make them small enough to not be captured in images, then the event had the wrong appearance. Cutting steel with high explosives requires massive overloads or bulky, difficult to install shape charges, very loud, sharp. Fairly heavy pieces would be thrown long distances. Simple math says that as many as 1500 cuts might have to be performed to make the long steel columns disappear from photos, this would have turned the explosion into a massive horizontal event whereas what we saw was well contained and uniform, moreso than most controlled demolition's.
What we saw had optimally placed and distributed explosive. So well done, uniform and contained, that we can be told it was a collapse and we'll actually argue about it even after no investigations were allowed, let alone done by due process, and steel is shipped over seas in a hurry. We've never seen anything like what happened to the towers before, we've never been in a situation like this as a people. We need to loose our fear of government and of each other. We need to work together.
When I see disinfos in action, I call them on it, ...... so I left Lets Roll. Only to return after a few months to discover I was blocked from viewing the site, still am.
Phil Jayhan is a good man and remembers hearing that the floors of the WTC had forced evacuations before concrete was poured. The documentary I saw in 1990 had that information too, plus much more.
Since I've had some experience with high explosives, above ground cushion blasting with anflo, and I studied for my blasters license and studied demolition, never tried to apply after I saw how local regulations effectively outlawed it, but that, and my steel/concrete experience give me an edge in using what I remember from the 1990 construction documentary.
The concrete core is not a strawman to be knocked down later. It has survived years and only gathers more and more proof as time passes and I keep arguing in support of what I know.
Didn't mean to get into such a long diatribe or rant but I felt like folks here were due a little about who I am an what I've done, what's under the bridge, that puts me in a position to competently present this information.
Here are a few statements of people who know about the concrete core. There are some contradictions, easily equa to the confusion natural and inherent with a ruse or fraud upon a group, us, but the support is solid for the concrete core in a situation where people are working from memory or a little more. Oh, one last image,
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0549,murphy,70685,6.html
Reports on the FDNY response to 9-11 generally agree that, as the FDNY-commissioned McKinsey study put it, "Chief officers considered a limited, localized collapse of the towers possible, but did not think that they would collapse entirely." For some of the fire officers, that confidence might have been based on a misconception about how the towers were built: The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core,
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/wtc/page3.html
These vertical columns are strengthened by horizontal beams, and this design is what helps support the building, and keep it stable in high winds. An inner concrete core houses the elevators, and provides additional vertical load support.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vM8Dqd...s&ct=clnk&cd=40
It was designed as a tube building that included a
Now I suppose that it will be claimed that the core of WTC2 is what is being seen but that it is exactly blocking the view of One Liberty Plaza which should be seen in the background.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 07:50 AM)
Now I suppose that it will be claimed that the core of WTC2 is what is being seen but that it is exactly blocking the view of One Liberty Plaza which should be seen in the background.
I'll post the same image I've been posting that shows the WTC 2 core, and the next in the series where the top is lower.
I'll post the same image I've been posting that shows the WTC 2 core, and the next in the series where the top is lower.
Cropped better:
Chris, is there a video version of that available that runs until the smoke clears? I don't see One Liberty in the second pic, but then again there is a lot of black and white smoke there that's blocking the view. The photos you posted are looking a little more toward the northest as opposed to the one I posted that is looking east.
The white smoke gives the impression of skylight which might lead one to believe nothing is left standing there, although that can't be the case when you look at photos from the same perspective on a clear day and see buildings in the background.
The white smoke gives the impression of skylight which might lead one to believe nothing is left standing there, although that can't be the case when you look at photos from the same perspective on a clear day and see buildings in the background.
Another pic:
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.