QUOTE (shagster+Mar 18 2006, 07:18 PM)
It's seen in the debris. Note the holes in the end of the columns. There's also an opening in the side to access the bolts.
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Here is an interior box column being stripped of beams.
Note the area to the right, about 1 foot, of the joint with the "I" beams. See the surface texture is different. It has been surface ground to remove the lumpy weld passes forming the butt joint. That is the 100% weld. That interior box column is the standard 14 x 14 inch that was used over the 80th floor or so. They didn't get smaller, only thinner wall. That is also an extruded box rather than hand fabbed as they were lower in the tower not in the core, but surrounding the core.
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Here is an interior box column being stripped of beams.
Note the area to the right, about 1 foot, of the joint with the "I" beams. See the surface texture is different. It has been surface ground to remove the lumpy weld passes forming the butt joint. That is the 100% weld. That interior box column is the standard 14 x 14 inch that was used over the 80th floor or so. They didn't get smaller, only thinner wall. That is also an extruded box rather than hand fabbed as they were lower in the tower not in the core, but surrounding the core.
QUOTE (gordon+)
If that photograph shows a concrete core,(the sequence taken from the apartment across the river) then five seconds later, in the next photograph there is clearly nothing there, then where did the concrete core go to? If it disintegrated into dust, by whatever means, same as all the rest, then we would see a massive secondary cloud of concrete dust.
If it did not disintegrate, but simply broke up into large pieces we would see those pieces on top of the debris pile.
Very good logic regarding the image of the WTC 2 CORE . Essentially making the argument, in the case of a concrete core for HE (high explosive) being optimally placed and distributed throughout the core. This of course is only possible during construction. The visual effect of a detonation of HE inside concrete from the distance the picture is taken is fairly different than we might expect. With an engineered wall, constructed and inspected, the loading of the HE can be very closely calculated and just a slight overloading causes near perfect breakage into small conglomerate chunks or right down to SAND & GRAVEL W/cement dust, depending on the proximity to the expanding gases. At any rate the expansion at detonation beyond the concrete is quite limited, the explosion very muffled, and perhaps obscured by it’s own dust within a 10th of a second of the detonation by a falling action. Sequence photography will not be fast enough, even video at that distance won’t be of much value. Where was hollywood with the 70mm film at 60 FPS when we needed them?
The below image shows WTC 1 and I would say that the core has just detonated, like 0.5 seconds before the shot, unevenly leaving the spire supported by a segment of shear wall lower formed by an interior box column.
at a point just after the above, WTC 2 here
Or below where the interior box columns have just fallen, thermite in the basement. This image is just before the above in the Aman Zafar series.
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
Those ARE interior box columns. What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
I could only explain it like this. Imagine the detail on all 4 sides.
Yes the engineers had/have the books, but 35 years and memory, wow. They would need the concrete core issue to hit the big time to even make them look for the books, let alone the fear issue. There is no doubt from personal experiences with P.E.s that they are afraid to come out and publically support the concrete core they know very well existed. With regard to memory, I’ve spoken personally with men who walked the steel in both towers, they don’t remember much at all, and admit it. Consider the same period of time applied to the simple ownership and location of a book. This is why the AIR CORE crowd is doing what they are doing, to prevent a public inquiry into its actaul possesion of books. Personaly I know a number of people have a copy of the 1990 PBS documentary “The Construction Of the Twin Towers”.
Again, I'm not an engineer, and have almost no idea what is in their textbooks. With this rather large caveat, one still has to wonder why no textbooks describing a concrete core from even 2000 would be around. The WTC buildings were among the most famous in the world, even in 2000. AFAIK, they were the first to use the tube within a tube design. Thus, I would expect that they would still be in the textbooks, even if 50 "tube within a tube" skyscrapers have been built since then. Everybody knows about Orville and Wilbur Wright's silly looking airplane, even though there's been millions built since then.
So, then, the question is: why has no textbook even from 2000 come to light, describing a concrete core?
Unfortunately, I agree that a "fear factor" can be quite significant, but if you consider that the population of engineers who would have such a book to be in the thousands*, I would still expect some engineers to have looked it up and forwarded that knowldedge to 911 web sites, if nobody else.
Have you considered that any concrete used to surround the core was simply there to protect stairwells in the event of fire, and not used for load bearing purposes, at all? Obviously, such concrete "armor" would be a lot less than 17 feet wide, e.g., but might still constitute a solid, rectangular looking tube. In this case, we could speak about a concrete tube, but not a concrete core.
* If not hundreds of thousands. The following link shows that "Heavy and civil engineering construction" labor force in the US to be 700,000+ .
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/...e/ces2023700001
If it did not disintegrate, but simply broke up into large pieces we would see those pieces on top of the debris pile.
Very good logic regarding the image of the WTC 2 CORE . Essentially making the argument, in the case of a concrete core for HE (high explosive) being optimally placed and distributed throughout the core. This of course is only possible during construction. The visual effect of a detonation of HE inside concrete from the distance the picture is taken is fairly different than we might expect. With an engineered wall, constructed and inspected, the loading of the HE can be very closely calculated and just a slight overloading causes near perfect breakage into small conglomerate chunks or right down to SAND & GRAVEL W/cement dust, depending on the proximity to the expanding gases. At any rate the expansion at detonation beyond the concrete is quite limited, the explosion very muffled, and perhaps obscured by it’s own dust within a 10th of a second of the detonation by a falling action. Sequence photography will not be fast enough, even video at that distance won’t be of much value. Where was hollywood with the 70mm film at 60 FPS when we needed them?
The below image shows WTC 1 and I would say that the core has just detonated, like 0.5 seconds before the shot, unevenly leaving the spire supported by a segment of shear wall lower formed by an interior box column.
at a point just after the above, WTC 2 here
Or below where the interior box columns have just fallen, thermite in the basement. This image is just before the above in the Aman Zafar series.
QUOTE (gordon+)
If there is no other possibility other than those two then we must assume that the core was not concrete. It does not preclude there still being a steel columned core which remains standing after collapse of the perimeter columns and floors, and I believe that it is this which is apparent in the photograph and discernible though not obvious in the video clips,
Gordon
I think I agree and that I've covered the basic event with images and explanation with regard to your condition defined as the period of time, or in what I describe as the time between explosion and image capture and what happens within the spread I present with images, or, where the "concrete went, when?".
Gordon
I think I agree and that I've covered the basic event with images and explanation with regard to your condition defined as the period of time, or in what I describe as the time between explosion and image capture and what happens within the spread I present with images, or, where the "concrete went, when?".
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 05:23 PM)
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 19 2006, 02:42 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 05:23 PM)
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
Those ARE interior box columns. What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
I could only explain it like this. Imagine the detail on all 4 sides.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 12:58 AM)
Yes the engineers had/have the books, but 35 years and memory, wow. They would need the concrete core issue to hit the big time to even make them look for the books, let alone the fear issue. There is no doubt from personal experiences with P.E.s that they are afraid to come out and publically support the concrete core they know very well existed. With regard to memory, I’ve spoken personally with men who walked the steel in both towers, they don’t remember much at all, and admit it. Consider the same period of time applied to the simple ownership and location of a book. This is why the AIR CORE crowd is doing what they are doing, to prevent a public inquiry into its actaul possesion of books. Personaly I know a number of people have a copy of the 1990 PBS documentary “The Construction Of the Twin Towers”.
Again, I'm not an engineer, and have almost no idea what is in their textbooks. With this rather large caveat, one still has to wonder why no textbooks describing a concrete core from even 2000 would be around. The WTC buildings were among the most famous in the world, even in 2000. AFAIK, they were the first to use the tube within a tube design. Thus, I would expect that they would still be in the textbooks, even if 50 "tube within a tube" skyscrapers have been built since then. Everybody knows about Orville and Wilbur Wright's silly looking airplane, even though there's been millions built since then.
So, then, the question is: why has no textbook even from 2000 come to light, describing a concrete core?
Unfortunately, I agree that a "fear factor" can be quite significant, but if you consider that the population of engineers who would have such a book to be in the thousands*, I would still expect some engineers to have looked it up and forwarded that knowldedge to 911 web sites, if nobody else.
Have you considered that any concrete used to surround the core was simply there to protect stairwells in the event of fire, and not used for load bearing purposes, at all? Obviously, such concrete "armor" would be a lot less than 17 feet wide, e.g., but might still constitute a solid, rectangular looking tube. In this case, we could speak about a concrete tube, but not a concrete core.
* If not hundreds of thousands. The following link shows that "Heavy and civil engineering construction" labor force in the US to be 700,000+ .
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/...e/ces2023700001
hereward....at last! I'm back "on the air", hehehe. Sorry I haven't answered you before now. I tried a couple of times, but my internet Telephone line has been so "noisy" that my modem just drops the connection. This happened a few days ago for a day or so, but this time it was for three days! It seems to have got "good" again; so here's hoping it will let me finish this time, heh?
Right. Before I resume our conversation where we left off, I'd like to draw your attention to something which I think will give an insight into the "doublethink" and "blinkers" which seems to afflict some of the CTers here (but NOT yourself as far as I can judge, hereward....which is why I retain respect for you....and why therefore I felt bad about my leaving you "in the lurch" because of internet connection problems at my end). Again, my apologies.
Anyhow, that 'something' is contained in one of newton's recent posts (quoted below)....and it has to do with 'SUCTION' WAKES, SLIPSTREAMS DYNAMIC AIR PRESSURE CAUSED BY BODIES MOVING WITHIN 'TUBES'. Note that newton 'recognises' the damage potential of this fact/phenomena in the passage relating to elevators which I highlighted in his post.....
Local #1 Ironworkers
http://www.topflange.com/index.htm
http://www.topflange.com/Gallery2_FrameSet.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excellent research reasonwhy. Great photo. Not only does the photo show the placement of the columns within the core... it also refutes NIST's claims that the interior core columns were much smaller than the 12" x 36" core perimeter columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004.html
The statements that "there exists absolutely no evidence for steel core columns inside the core", is clearly shown to be erroneous, while... OTOH there IS No evidence in this photo of a concrete box core whatsoever.
It was a clever semantic ploy to call the central core interior columns 'elevator guide rails'. Certainly the interior box columns would have played a role in some way as 'elevator guide rails'. This is shown in numerous diagrams of the central core.
The photo certainly comes from a lower level of the pit. I would assume that this photo was taken after all the debris has been cleared off the top.
As they worked they way down through the pile, they would be cutting any protruding, still-standing columns, and in my opinion that is why they all appear 'cut' at about the same level. They cut them off when they were at 'ground level' and then excavated down around them, until they got to transportable lengths sticking up, then cut em off again, and so on right down to the foundations.
One of the best collections I've found on the original engineering aspects of the WTC was gathered together by the anonymous author of the Guardian / Nerdcities site. (now cached at Hoffmans site)...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
Those ARE interior box columns. What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
(emphasis mine)
These pictures of beams with squared off ends have always bothered me. My impression, also, is that they don't look cut, and there's no good reason why the ends of the beams show no sign (in these cases) of bending, which one would certainly expect (I would think) in the case of a gravity driven collapse.
My architect cousin informed me that the general principle is that column joins be just strong enough to match the strength of the weakest element being joined.
How, then, can this be true and still the columns just "come apart" like this?
If a demolition guy could access the columns joins, via the box which gives access to the bolts, then conceivably he/she could apply some agent to damage the bolts. But what?
Herein, I'd like to mention something that I read many, many years ago. IIRC, E. Gordon Liddy wrote an article on terrorism that appeared in Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, or OMNI magazine. In it, he mentioned some type of metal "embrittlement" chemical which could be applied to aircraft surfaces surreptitiously, which would facilitate them failing due to fracture.
Well, just Googled this subject, and here is what it says,
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005...rdon_liddy.html
December 09, 2005
G. Gordon Liddy on Terrorism
I remember reading this fictional account by G. Gordon Liddy when it first appeared in Omni in 1989. I wouldn't say he "predicted attack on America," but he did produce an entertaining piece of fiction.
The rendering of U.S. jet equipment inventory unusable cannot be attributed to the events of second August. The intelligence community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are, however, unanimously in agreement that the two are part of the same overall operation. This conclusion is based primarily upon the evidence taken from the body of a female slain by SEAL Team 3 on second August in the San Diego area while she was participating in the attack on the national electrical power distribution system (next heading). But for this fortuitous event, the sudden failure of several aircraft belonging to each U.S. carrier would still be blamed on age (a la the 1988 Aloha aircraft incident, when metal fatigue caused the roof of a Boeing 737 to rupture in flight). As it is, we have had to ground the U.S. civil commercial aviation fleet for an indefinite time, but at least we know what to look for. Japanese intelligence has confirmed that the body that the body of the woman slain by the SEALs is that of a member of their "Red Army" group. On her person was an item at first thought unrelated to her mission: what appeared to be a U.S.-made Magic Marker, which, although not dried out, did not mark. The fluid it contained has now been identified by researchers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as nearly chemically identical to our classified liquid metal embrittlement (LME) agent. Unfortunately, prior to being added to the classified technologies list, the LME agent was discussed in open literature.
(emphasis mine)
Part of 1 response to the above quote is:
(emphasis mine)
Part of 1 response to the above quote is:
Liquid metal (specifically, aluminium alloy) embrittlement agents do exist, have been discussed in the open literature (including safety posters at airports!) and are already on the list of things prohibited from aircraft -- and have been for many years, in fact long before Liddy wrote that article. The main concern is accidental leakage rather than terrorism. As a form of terrorism (rather than industrial sabotage) it's a non-starter, because the aircraft failure occurs long after application, so even the attacker doesn't know if he was actually responsible.
The Magic Marker would not be a particularly effective way to apply it. The material has to come in direct contact with structurally significant aluminium alloy components, and there is no such access from within the cabin. Conceivably you could attack unpainted doors while standing in a jetway, but I suspect people would object.
This poster implies that this would only work on aluminum alloys, but doesn't say why.
I doubtfull that anybody could actually apply LME to just most of the column bolts, on every floor, but I'm basically guessing.
I could only explain it like this. Imagine the detail on all 4 sides.
Ah-h-h, maybe it's just me, but this isn't much of an explanation.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
The schematic diagram is labelled to state the Core floors were 5" of lightweight concrete / no aggregate. It is my understanding that lightweight concrete was used in the 4" concrete on the truss floors (which ran from the central core to the perimeter columns), but that the core floors were heavier weight regular concrete. Does anyone have substantiating evidence that the central core concrete floors were also lightweight concrete?
It seems that we have progressed from the concrete core to floors that had C-4 explosives incorporated into the concrete at the time of construction.
I find this to be a little on the wacky side. The idea of incorporating explosives into any building at the time of construction does not seem realistic. Rumours of secret emplacements would have to be backed up with some kind of evidence to show that such interruptions in a hurried construction project actually took place. Such interruptions would surely have stood out like a sore thumb and raised suspicions amongst every construction worker on the site. Such 'secrets' would not remain secrets for long, especially after the explosive collapses. Not all of those construction workers would be quiet about it.
That is a completely different level of 'possibility' as opposed to the surreptitious planting of explosives by a few covert installers.
I'd call this {explosives planted at the time of construction} theory 'possible' but improbable.
Local #1 Ironworkers
http://www.topflange.com/index.htm
http://www.topflange.com/Gallery2_FrameSet.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excellent research reasonwhy. Great photo. Not only does the photo show the placement of the columns within the core... it also refutes NIST's claims that the interior core columns were much smaller than the 12" x 36" core perimeter columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004.html
The statements that "there exists absolutely no evidence for steel core columns inside the core", is clearly shown to be erroneous, while... OTOH there IS No evidence in this photo of a concrete box core whatsoever.
It was a clever semantic ploy to call the central core interior columns 'elevator guide rails'. Certainly the interior box columns would have played a role in some way as 'elevator guide rails'. This is shown in numerous diagrams of the central core.
The photo certainly comes from a lower level of the pit. I would assume that this photo was taken after all the debris has been cleared off the top.
As they worked they way down through the pile, they would be cutting any protruding, still-standing columns, and in my opinion that is why they all appear 'cut' at about the same level. They cut them off when they were at 'ground level' and then excavated down around them, until they got to transportable lengths sticking up, then cut em off again, and so on right down to the foundations.
One of the best collections I've found on the original engineering aspects of the WTC was gathered together by the anonymous author of the Guardian / Nerdcities site. (now cached at Hoffmans site)...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
That image would have to be the best evidence for steel interior core columns yet. The size discrepency between those inside the core area and those on the outside is still large. Freight elevators had larger guide rails and heavy structures at the bottom to support the rails overhead.
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
If those were interior core columns, then at the elevation of the top of this photo, they would be protruding from the top of the core if they were continuous. The cuts are not salvage torch cuts and, floors create a level plane.
I've made a mistake in identifying these as interior box columns. They are freight elevator rails or their base sections with lateral bracing brackets.
They are about the right thickness for about the 80th floor but the brackets on the side match the horizontal connections I've notated on this image.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
In the high res link, green arrows are salvage cuts and the red arrow is the bracket shown above in the image of the stackd columns. To the left are the row of "Massive Box Columns" interior box columns outside one side of a core. The tops are cut square and level with each other. The elevator guide rails are salvage cuts, as Foxx says, cut at the top of the debri piles, not square and not level, but approximately so.
If those were steel core columns, they would show here.
And they would be seen here, instead of fine vertical elements that really can only be rebar.
and here.
and here.
And here, between the interior box columns and the stairwell.
Then, the 17 feet is accounted for here. Proportion is fairly easy to see, the width on the long side of the core out to the perimeter walls is too narrow.
Beg your pardon? I am intentionally clouding 'things' ? Sounds a bit like... "Faux Lies".
You were asked to produce "proof of concrete", and as far as I have seen you have failed to do so.
You state that you "fairly demand" that 'we' "must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area".
This has been done (more than adequately), regardless of your attempts to waffle around the evidence with 'pope-ish' proclamations which again you don't seem able to support.
Beg your pardon? I am intentionally clouding 'things' ? Sounds a bit like... "Faux Lies".
You were asked to produce "proof of concrete", and as far as I have seen you have failed to do so.
You state that you "fairly demand" that 'we' "must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area".
This has been done (more than adequately), regardless of your attempts to waffle around the evidence with 'pope-ish' proclamations which again you don't seem able to support.
bla, bla, blah...there is huge evidence for the concrete core and virtually no raw evidence for the multiple steel core columns.
Uhhhhhh ... see the above.
We can't tell from the above photo what depth in the pit the photo was taken, but all of these core columns appear to be virtually the same size --- MASSIVE when considered in scale to the people in the photo.
We can also tell that these columns do not show evidence of demolition at this level, the tops have all been cut by torch (at least that is how it appears to me when viewing the supersized photo).
We can also see that there there is NO evidence of a 17 foot thick concrete box in proximity to the outer columns (as you have claimed).
The site you have put together...
http://concretecore.741.com/
...is so full of distortions, engineering misconceptions, and outright errors (to any who have actually studied the central core of the WTC towers), that I won't waste time by pointing out ALL these errors here.
You seem to be dropping hints that I am a 'disinfo'. It does not surprise me that someone who promotes the nonsense you are, will view others who refute your notions as 'disinfos'.
You keep referring to this mysterious 1990 documentary that coincidentally, no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever seen or mentioned. As a matter of fact, there are numerous claims made by yourself as having 'inside' knowledge... that no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever implied. The un-named author of the Guardian/Nerdcities site (which was first published soon after 9/11), amply demonstrated his 'inside' knowledge of the construction details of the towers when the authorities were trying their best to cover-up and hide those details --- and he NEVER mentioned this 'concrete core secret' / 'BS'.
You continually post the above photo (which clearly shows interior box columns) and yet claim somehow that it doesn't show massive interior box columns, but rather shows much smaller 'elevator guide rails' (as you call them). It is interesting to note that this cropped photo does not show the perimeter columns for comparison. As can be seen (in uncropped photos), these interior steel box columns are MUCH larger than the perimeter columns...
When reasonwhy posted the photo which clearly shows placement and size of these interior core box columns you state...
You seem to be dropping hints that I am a 'disinfo'. It does not surprise me that someone who promotes the nonsense you are, will view others who refute your notions as 'disinfos'.
You keep referring to this mysterious 1990 documentary that coincidentally, no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever seen or mentioned. As a matter of fact, there are numerous claims made by yourself as having 'inside' knowledge... that no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever implied. The un-named author of the Guardian/Nerdcities site (which was first published soon after 9/11), amply demonstrated his 'inside' knowledge of the construction details of the towers when the authorities were trying their best to cover-up and hide those details --- and he NEVER mentioned this 'concrete core secret' / 'BS'.
You continually post the above photo (which clearly shows interior box columns) and yet claim somehow that it doesn't show massive interior box columns, but rather shows much smaller 'elevator guide rails' (as you call them). It is interesting to note that this cropped photo does not show the perimeter columns for comparison. As can be seen (in uncropped photos), these interior steel box columns are MUCH larger than the perimeter columns...
When reasonwhy posted the photo which clearly shows placement and size of these interior core box columns you state...
Those ARE interior box columns.
You admit that you were in ERROR when you previously stated that these... "interior box columns did NOT exist, and that there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support the fact that they DID exist"...
...yet you quickly change directions to discuss the 'cut' of these columns and imply this is evidence of your "Installed at Construction Explosives" theory.
You carry on to say...
Well, I don't see that at all. Either you or I needs to make an appointment with an optometrist. They appear slightly smaller in photos taken much higher up, but virtually the same size in the excavation photo.
Well, I don't see that at all. Either you or I needs to make an appointment with an optometrist. They appear slightly smaller in photos taken much higher up, but virtually the same size in the excavation photo.
The elevator guide rails are salvage cuts, as Foxx says, cut at the top of the debri piles, not square and not level, but approximately so. If those were steel core columns, they would show 'here'. (Zafar photo you use to 'prove' concrete core)
And they would be seen here, instead of fine vertical elements that really can only be rebar...
Surely you jest. You claim (from the distance that the spire photos were taken) that 3" rebar is visible ! and that is what we are seeing? Nonsense.
The photo you use which you claim shows 17' thick concrete walls is about as clear as Jayhans 'pod' photos.
I see nothing in that photo which resembles a 17' thick concrete wall. In my opinion your constant reposting of this unclear image in support of your theory is Pavlovian in nature. Do you believe that by continually saying this photo shows a 17' thick concrete wall, that you will eventually convince some that they see a 17' thick concrete wall in the photo? You MAY well be successful in this attempt with some CTers who are prone to hypnotism, but I sincerely doubt you will convince many here that they see a 17' thick concrete wall in this photo.
Can we see a hands-up of all those who believe this?
You do realize, of course, that this open area in the lobby is 5 stories in height (lets say 60 feet), and that we are looking at the narrow distance between the core and the perimeter wall (about 35 feet) ? The proportion between these two measurements seems within scale to me ... and I see no evidence at all in the lobby picture which supports this nonsensical 17' thick concrete wall you allege.
In short, Christophera... virtually ALL the 'evidence' you point to is either innocent misunderstanding on your part (in which case you need to re-evalute your theory)... or you have an agenda which is not in keeping with truth.
Theories such as yours and Jayhans are great fodder for the OCT's to promote strawman issues with which to attack the 9/11 truth movement. I'm sure the skulking OCT's wish you great luck in promoting this story, and that the 9/11 truth movement will implode from within by the promotion of such nonsense.
WHO benefits from the promotion of your unsupportable theory? Surely NOT the 9/11 truth movement.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that. (Actually the particular quote I was looking for was on the OTIS site somewhere.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
Wrong 'guest'...
Perhaps my wording below the picture was unclear. I did not mean that NIST shows that diagram, but rather that NIST shows that the core was a post & beam construction (similar to the diagram that PBS used).
The diagram...
IS from the PBS special, but they misinform when they imply the core construction was NOT standard typical post and beam construction, (just as represented in the diagram I use above).
All the central core columns on EVERY floor were transversly braced in all directions with massive lintel beams bolted AND welded to the columns.
The NIST diagrams clearly show that the core was constructed in the post & lintel method, NOTHING similar to the truss floors which extended from the core to the perimeter columns...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
Right on. They exploited the ambiguous qualities of this image.
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, which does not look into the core area so the computer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis for a core description in a bogus video recently produced. In the video, the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the the similar image lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Very good point showing the desparation of the perpetators to revert to twisting language with quasi technical expressions.
SICK!
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
I think if we find out why how the large core sections were spliced together that will answer a lot of the above questions. I can not imagine they just stacked the large core columns on top of each other without welds or steel plates . All the large core columns I have seen on trucks and even in the above picture are to perfect to be cut in the field with a torch. Also none of the columns have insulation as shagster pointed out. Could the large core columns have been encased with reinforced concrete or some other material? Concrete is used for fireproofing in large buildings and would cause problems for the OCT.
This concrete was pulverized and this would allow the large core sections to fall like toothpicks because the reinforcements would be useless without the concrete or other pulverized material around it. I do not see weld, bolt or rivet marks were a plate should be to splice the large core column sections together.
Christaphoria is trying to make the concrete core looks so ridicules nobody will seriously research the subject. I don’t see how anyone could present information so poorly and not be intentional. Everything else he presents is in support of the OCT. That tell me we should look in the direction he is trying to point us away from.
I am not supporting the concrete core only that the core columns could be encased in some reinforced material.
Right. Before I resume our conversation where we left off, I'd like to draw your attention to something which I think will give an insight into the "doublethink" and "blinkers" which seems to afflict some of the CTers here (but NOT yourself as far as I can judge, hereward....which is why I retain respect for you....and why therefore I felt bad about my leaving you "in the lurch" because of internet connection problems at my end). Again, my apologies.
Anyhow, that 'something' is contained in one of newton's recent posts (quoted below)....and it has to do with 'SUCTION' WAKES, SLIPSTREAMS DYNAMIC AIR PRESSURE CAUSED BY BODIES MOVING WITHIN 'TUBES'. Note that newton 'recognises' the damage potential of this fact/phenomena in the passage relating to elevators which I highlighted in his post.....
QUOTE (newton+Mar 18 2006, 03:34 AM)
i SERIOUSLY doubt any concrete wall is 17ft. thick. whoever labelled that picture should think about it. the 'marvel' of the towers was space. 17ft X 2 (assuming symmetry), and possibly by 4 (assuming a concrete box) would take up WAY too much space. if the core is forty ft. across, then there would be a five ft. wide hallway between two really stupidly big walls.
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
That 'something' now indicates that newton, by 'corollary', recognises that, if a piddling elevator 'cross-section' moving in a shaft can create such 'dangerous' air pressures which must be allowed for IN DESIGN, then how much MORE damaging would uncontrolled/non-designed-for air 'pressures' and 'movements' BE if almost an ACRE of 'cross-section' of 'rubble plug' moves FAST down INSIDE the outer perimeter 'tube'? You see what I'm trying to point out? On the one hand, LESSER STRENGTH air pressures are invoked by newton as damaging enough to warrant DESIGN FEATURES to specifically handle them so as not to damage the shaft/surrounding material; but then he and other CTers will DISALLOW OTHERS invoking similar BUT VASTLY MORE SEVERE air pressure phenomena INVARIABLY attending such vast movements of massive inner-falling floor concrete/hat-truss steel etc rubble 'plug' down inside the building tube.
Is that not 'picking and choosing without regard to fair debate? What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander, wouldn't you agree?
Now, back to our discussion re Foxx's 1-second per 5-floor collapse time misleading 'figure'.
By now you will have seen all that info about INTERNAL collapse going on BEFORE the facade is destroyed by all the buffeting and vibrations/undulations caused by such remorselessly accelerating/increasing forces/impacts/impulses/vibrations/oscillations/pressure-fronts...which forces include progressively faster ADVANCE DAMAGE FRONT due to the very 'air' forces which newton resorts to in his 'elevator design' argument above!...only WAY more extreme. Fair observation?
As to the speed of collapse: It is obvious from the videos, that once the top has moved/sunk so far out of design parameters (way beyond storm-wind tolerances, heh?), much of the bolts/welds would have either been snapped or levered out of their effective positions. Once that happened, the disconnected floors and GREAT MASS of HEAVY hat-truss steel would have started falling WITHIN, even as the outer 'shell' of the top continued to fall on/within the lower tube section.
That is the stage when one should expect the 'wake suction' attending the falling INNARDS; because the SAME amount of air being displaced by the ADVANCE PRESSURE in FRONT of that mass 'plug' will be being "SUCKED IN from BEHIND that plug...and escaping air/gases from in front will curve up and try to fill the partial vacuum trailing that falling mass (this is the same principle that causes 'racing car slipstream and suction' which trailing cars take advantage of to 'pull them along' behind the leading car faster than if they were 'clear' of that car's 'wake suction').
So you can see from all that, that the TOP, HAT-TRUSS, UPPER-CORE, FLOORS INNARDS are what is doing all the 'collapsing' FIRST, and that any damage to outer wall and lower core structures is happeneing CONCURRENT and SLIGHTLY 'lagging' and 'tracking' the advance of that tremendous INNER collapse between the outer walls and the core. Again, if a piddling elevator can cause damage through air pressure FRONTS/SLIPSTREAMS, can you imaging the havoc caused by UNCONTROLLED and oscillating/reverberating pressure-fronts created by the inner falling rubble plug almost an acre in cross-section and humongously massive even from the start (heavy hat-truss steel, upper-core steel, upper-floor concrete/steel and top-box steel etc), let alone its ACCUMULATING IMPULSE/MOMENTUM AND MASS AS IT COLLECTS LOWER FLOORS WITH ACCELERATING RAPIDITY.
And this is where all those 'misleading calculations' come in. Once it is realised that the actual progress of the collapse is intimately tied to the speed of the INNARDS ONLY, and that the outer 'collapse' is actually a CONCOMMITANT of the 'air-pressure-driven destruction front', then the ONLY relevant calculation for speed of collapse is that of the INNARDS, and the effective 'advance-front' damage/disconnections that this inner collapse is doing EVEN BEFORE FULL IMPACT IS MADE BETWEEN FLOOR MEMBRANES AND FALLING RUBBLE on average (because some tumult would ensure that certain 'isolated points' of contact between 'protruding' debris/steel are made prior to the 'bulk' contact across the whole cross-section as the full 'depth' of the rubble pile gets 're-compacted' BRIEFLY while its 'material front' is in contact and 'very transient' hesitation).
So gordon's and others calculations treating the 'crunching/buckling' of columns is IRRELEVANT because (after local collapse due to fire began above) those lower walls/columns failed PARALLEL to the progress of the innard collapse between them, rather than 'on top' of them....so NO compression on their end-points would have been acting long enough before the SIDEWAYS air-pressure and impact tumult 'ripped them apart' from INSIDE-OUT, not ABOVE.
So, given all those elements of my observations/hypothesis, by the time the upper floors etc INNARDS were being remorsely accelerated WITHIN and DOWN the outer tube, the CONNECTORS would have been 'easy meat' for the HUMONGOUS air-pressure/impact/impulse forces unleashed at local collapse, and GROWING with the 'square' of every second of that downwards progress, irrespective of the miniscule resistence of ONLY THE BOLTS etc CONNECTORS, as any breaking columns would be a RESULT of inner collapse, and NOT a 'cause' of that inner collapse! And some connections would have been compromised well ahead of impact because of vibration/undulations which were NOT DESIGNED FOR. See what I'm getting at with these observations?
Basically, any such towers should be designed to prevent (1) local collapse by fire/impact-removal of fireproofing; (2) INNER COLLAPSE of floors and hat truss material etc. and (3) geometry/connections vulnerabilities to DYNAMIC STRESSES and AIR-PRESSURE FRONTS due to collapsing INNARDS of that magnitude/velocities (rather than just static weight/diffuse-wind loads).
And lastly, given the ease with which the aluminium planes sheared outer/core columns, then it is no surprise that by the time all that concrete from the upper core heavy steel from the hat-truss etc hit the base of the core, that many of the lower sections of that remnant core were probably 'sheared' or 'cracked' etc by STEEL BEAMS FALLING very fast and very chaotically against one and the other columns here and there at random points....no place to be, that lower core base, consideraing the damage to surrounding buildings caused by less heavy steel members, heh? Which is why I myself am not surprised that the damaged and 'collapse undercut' remnant core itself stood only briefly before it too fell apart because of the damage both along its height and down at its base by that time. Incidently, could some of that stuff 'hanging off' the inner core be some of the CORE concrete floor membranes that only dislodged from three sides and was briefly attached to one remaing side before falling apart with the remnant core columns?...if so, these would be swinging and putting even more A-symmetric loads on the already damaged remnant core structure).
Anyhow, it should be stressed that well into the innard collapse, 5-floor segments would be being DYNAMICALLY COLLECTED BY PRIOR ACCELERATED RUBBLE PILE ALREADY FALLING INSIDE THE TUBE BY THE TIME THE LOWER FLOORS ARE REACHED. Which means that all those so-called calculations based on time of 'free-fall' between 12-feet floor space are ERRONEOUS...since at NO time after the collapse WITHIN started, did the advancing plug of rubble maintain CONSTANT VELOCITY, but in fact ACCELERATED EASILY through WEAKLY-CONNECTED (compared to forces unleashed) FLOORS, so that the lower 5-floor sections would have been 'collected' at a FRACTION of a second. So Foxx's 'generous average' of 5-floors-per second is WAY OFF the reality: (1) because it, like those other calculations of 1:36, treat a 'starting' time at and across EACH 12-foot floor vertical space, and NOT the CONTINUED ACCELARATING TIME that was involved in reality over the height involved....as can be seen in the videos as the advance INNARDS collapse pressure/impact/expulsions front precedes the actual wall disintegration, and does so at an ever-increasing speed as it got closer to the ground levels.
Anyhow, hereward, that's all I'm going to hypothesise/comment on for a bit. I just HAVE to get back to my main reason for being at Physorg, which is cosmology physics/theory rather than conspiracy/collapse/creation/evolution physics/theory, hehehe. Enough is enough for me. I have said my piece as I see it. Finis. I hope we two at least retain mutual respect for each other. I shall follow your progress with interest....and if anyone comes up with any 'proof' of active US govt criminal involvement, you can count me in on any legal effort/campaign to remove those *****nutcases and dangerous idiots in the present US administration!
Cheers and goodbye for now, hereward. Oh, and about your moniker. Is that your christened name, or just a nom de plume here? And I guessed right, it WAS something to do with that rebel in Norman times! (your mom probably was a reader of Charles Kingsley...he wrote the novel "Hereward the Wake", hehehe).
Toodles. mate!
RC.
.
noone in their right mind would design or build such a thing.
and like many of the 'if i only had a brain's of 911, the point is rather moot.
the towers stood through hurricanes.
the towers stood after the impacts.
the towers were really good at standing.
i don't wonder if the high speed elevators had a concrete shaft. they went REALLY fast, and the air pressure must have been tremendous. perhaps sheet concrete was used for some elevator shafts. BFD.
in the PBS special, they said that almost no two pieces of steel were identical in the towers. in the PBS special, they make no mention of a concrete core.
most skyscrapers have a different structure at the base. this was obvious in the case of the twin towers. there could easily have more concrete at the base, than higher up the towers. it would only make sense that they were much more massive at the bottom, and much more 'airy' at the top.
the concrete FLOORS of the core would definitely have limited the sway, and would have given lots of lateral stiffness, which would give the core a much greater ability to resist deformation. i'm sure the core was quite solid with or without the elusive, concrete core walls.
i'm sure that many people call sheetrock 'concrete', so that could account for this rumour.
p.s. the chinese guys were probably honest in their first model, but like anything else involved with 911, they have now been threatened with their lives, and must deny the validity of their earlier work.
NIST makes NO CLAIM of 'other weakened steel'. the implication is clear, though. without the presence of the 'other weakened steel', there is not enough missing from the structural support to change their first findings.
jane doe's balls take 96 seconds. pretty damn close to the first published times from china, no?
That 'something' now indicates that newton, by 'corollary', recognises that, if a piddling elevator 'cross-section' moving in a shaft can create such 'dangerous' air pressures which must be allowed for IN DESIGN, then how much MORE damaging would uncontrolled/non-designed-for air 'pressures' and 'movements' BE if almost an ACRE of 'cross-section' of 'rubble plug' moves FAST down INSIDE the outer perimeter 'tube'? You see what I'm trying to point out? On the one hand, LESSER STRENGTH air pressures are invoked by newton as damaging enough to warrant DESIGN FEATURES to specifically handle them so as not to damage the shaft/surrounding material; but then he and other CTers will DISALLOW OTHERS invoking similar BUT VASTLY MORE SEVERE air pressure phenomena INVARIABLY attending such vast movements of massive inner-falling floor concrete/hat-truss steel etc rubble 'plug' down inside the building tube.
Is that not 'picking and choosing without regard to fair debate? What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander, wouldn't you agree?
Now, back to our discussion re Foxx's 1-second per 5-floor collapse time misleading 'figure'.
By now you will have seen all that info about INTERNAL collapse going on BEFORE the facade is destroyed by all the buffeting and vibrations/undulations caused by such remorselessly accelerating/increasing forces/impacts/impulses/vibrations/oscillations/pressure-fronts...which forces include progressively faster ADVANCE DAMAGE FRONT due to the very 'air' forces which newton resorts to in his 'elevator design' argument above!...only WAY more extreme. Fair observation?
As to the speed of collapse: It is obvious from the videos, that once the top has moved/sunk so far out of design parameters (way beyond storm-wind tolerances, heh?), much of the bolts/welds would have either been snapped or levered out of their effective positions. Once that happened, the disconnected floors and GREAT MASS of HEAVY hat-truss steel would have started falling WITHIN, even as the outer 'shell' of the top continued to fall on/within the lower tube section.
That is the stage when one should expect the 'wake suction' attending the falling INNARDS; because the SAME amount of air being displaced by the ADVANCE PRESSURE in FRONT of that mass 'plug' will be being "SUCKED IN from BEHIND that plug...and escaping air/gases from in front will curve up and try to fill the partial vacuum trailing that falling mass (this is the same principle that causes 'racing car slipstream and suction' which trailing cars take advantage of to 'pull them along' behind the leading car faster than if they were 'clear' of that car's 'wake suction').
So you can see from all that, that the TOP, HAT-TRUSS, UPPER-CORE, FLOORS INNARDS are what is doing all the 'collapsing' FIRST, and that any damage to outer wall and lower core structures is happeneing CONCURRENT and SLIGHTLY 'lagging' and 'tracking' the advance of that tremendous INNER collapse between the outer walls and the core. Again, if a piddling elevator can cause damage through air pressure FRONTS/SLIPSTREAMS, can you imaging the havoc caused by UNCONTROLLED and oscillating/reverberating pressure-fronts created by the inner falling rubble plug almost an acre in cross-section and humongously massive even from the start (heavy hat-truss steel, upper-core steel, upper-floor concrete/steel and top-box steel etc), let alone its ACCUMULATING IMPULSE/MOMENTUM AND MASS AS IT COLLECTS LOWER FLOORS WITH ACCELERATING RAPIDITY.
And this is where all those 'misleading calculations' come in. Once it is realised that the actual progress of the collapse is intimately tied to the speed of the INNARDS ONLY, and that the outer 'collapse' is actually a CONCOMMITANT of the 'air-pressure-driven destruction front', then the ONLY relevant calculation for speed of collapse is that of the INNARDS, and the effective 'advance-front' damage/disconnections that this inner collapse is doing EVEN BEFORE FULL IMPACT IS MADE BETWEEN FLOOR MEMBRANES AND FALLING RUBBLE on average (because some tumult would ensure that certain 'isolated points' of contact between 'protruding' debris/steel are made prior to the 'bulk' contact across the whole cross-section as the full 'depth' of the rubble pile gets 're-compacted' BRIEFLY while its 'material front' is in contact and 'very transient' hesitation).
So gordon's and others calculations treating the 'crunching/buckling' of columns is IRRELEVANT because (after local collapse due to fire began above) those lower walls/columns failed PARALLEL to the progress of the innard collapse between them, rather than 'on top' of them....so NO compression on their end-points would have been acting long enough before the SIDEWAYS air-pressure and impact tumult 'ripped them apart' from INSIDE-OUT, not ABOVE.
So, given all those elements of my observations/hypothesis, by the time the upper floors etc INNARDS were being remorsely accelerated WITHIN and DOWN the outer tube, the CONNECTORS would have been 'easy meat' for the HUMONGOUS air-pressure/impact/impulse forces unleashed at local collapse, and GROWING with the 'square' of every second of that downwards progress, irrespective of the miniscule resistence of ONLY THE BOLTS etc CONNECTORS, as any breaking columns would be a RESULT of inner collapse, and NOT a 'cause' of that inner collapse! And some connections would have been compromised well ahead of impact because of vibration/undulations which were NOT DESIGNED FOR. See what I'm getting at with these observations?
Basically, any such towers should be designed to prevent (1) local collapse by fire/impact-removal of fireproofing; (2) INNER COLLAPSE of floors and hat truss material etc. and (3) geometry/connections vulnerabilities to DYNAMIC STRESSES and AIR-PRESSURE FRONTS due to collapsing INNARDS of that magnitude/velocities (rather than just static weight/diffuse-wind loads).
And lastly, given the ease with which the aluminium planes sheared outer/core columns, then it is no surprise that by the time all that concrete from the upper core heavy steel from the hat-truss etc hit the base of the core, that many of the lower sections of that remnant core were probably 'sheared' or 'cracked' etc by STEEL BEAMS FALLING very fast and very chaotically against one and the other columns here and there at random points....no place to be, that lower core base, consideraing the damage to surrounding buildings caused by less heavy steel members, heh? Which is why I myself am not surprised that the damaged and 'collapse undercut' remnant core itself stood only briefly before it too fell apart because of the damage both along its height and down at its base by that time. Incidently, could some of that stuff 'hanging off' the inner core be some of the CORE concrete floor membranes that only dislodged from three sides and was briefly attached to one remaing side before falling apart with the remnant core columns?...if so, these would be swinging and putting even more A-symmetric loads on the already damaged remnant core structure).
Anyhow, it should be stressed that well into the innard collapse, 5-floor segments would be being DYNAMICALLY COLLECTED BY PRIOR ACCELERATED RUBBLE PILE ALREADY FALLING INSIDE THE TUBE BY THE TIME THE LOWER FLOORS ARE REACHED. Which means that all those so-called calculations based on time of 'free-fall' between 12-feet floor space are ERRONEOUS...since at NO time after the collapse WITHIN started, did the advancing plug of rubble maintain CONSTANT VELOCITY, but in fact ACCELERATED EASILY through WEAKLY-CONNECTED (compared to forces unleashed) FLOORS, so that the lower 5-floor sections would have been 'collected' at a FRACTION of a second. So Foxx's 'generous average' of 5-floors-per second is WAY OFF the reality: (1) because it, like those other calculations of 1:36, treat a 'starting' time at and across EACH 12-foot floor vertical space, and NOT the CONTINUED ACCELARATING TIME that was involved in reality over the height involved....as can be seen in the videos as the advance INNARDS collapse pressure/impact/expulsions front precedes the actual wall disintegration, and does so at an ever-increasing speed as it got closer to the ground levels.
Anyhow, hereward, that's all I'm going to hypothesise/comment on for a bit. I just HAVE to get back to my main reason for being at Physorg, which is cosmology physics/theory rather than conspiracy/collapse/creation/evolution physics/theory, hehehe. Enough is enough for me. I have said my piece as I see it. Finis. I hope we two at least retain mutual respect for each other. I shall follow your progress with interest....and if anyone comes up with any 'proof' of active US govt criminal involvement, you can count me in on any legal effort/campaign to remove those *****nutcases and dangerous idiots in the present US administration!
Cheers and goodbye for now, hereward. Oh, and about your moniker. Is that your christened name, or just a nom de plume here? And I guessed right, it WAS something to do with that rebel in Norman times! (your mom probably was a reader of Charles Kingsley...he wrote the novel "Hereward the Wake", hehehe).
Toodles. mate!
RC.
.
Local #1 Ironworkers
http://www.topflange.com/index.htm
http://www.topflange.com/Gallery2_FrameSet.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excellent research reasonwhy. Great photo. Not only does the photo show the placement of the columns within the core... it also refutes NIST's claims that the interior core columns were much smaller than the 12" x 36" core perimeter columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004.html
The statements that "there exists absolutely no evidence for steel core columns inside the core", is clearly shown to be erroneous, while... OTOH there IS No evidence in this photo of a concrete box core whatsoever.
It was a clever semantic ploy to call the central core interior columns 'elevator guide rails'. Certainly the interior box columns would have played a role in some way as 'elevator guide rails'. This is shown in numerous diagrams of the central core.
QUOTE
by Christophera
What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
The photo certainly comes from a lower level of the pit. I would assume that this photo was taken after all the debris has been cleared off the top.
As they worked they way down through the pile, they would be cutting any protruding, still-standing columns, and in my opinion that is why they all appear 'cut' at about the same level. They cut them off when they were at 'ground level' and then excavated down around them, until they got to transportable lengths sticking up, then cut em off again, and so on right down to the foundations.
One of the best collections I've found on the original engineering aspects of the WTC was gathered together by the anonymous author of the Guardian / Nerdcities site. (now cached at Hoffmans site)...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 02:58 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 19 2006, 02:42 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 18 2006, 05:23 PM)
Those are elevator guide rails. Good find, the best I've seen yet. Probably not frieght elevators, too small.
Interior box columns were welded 100% every joint, to the top.
Are these elevator guide rails?
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
Are these core colomns for elevators also?
Those ARE interior box columns. What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
(emphasis mine)
These pictures of beams with squared off ends have always bothered me. My impression, also, is that they don't look cut, and there's no good reason why the ends of the beams show no sign (in these cases) of bending, which one would certainly expect (I would think) in the case of a gravity driven collapse.
My architect cousin informed me that the general principle is that column joins be just strong enough to match the strength of the weakest element being joined.
How, then, can this be true and still the columns just "come apart" like this?
If a demolition guy could access the columns joins, via the box which gives access to the bolts, then conceivably he/she could apply some agent to damage the bolts. But what?
Herein, I'd like to mention something that I read many, many years ago. IIRC, E. Gordon Liddy wrote an article on terrorism that appeared in Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, or OMNI magazine. In it, he mentioned some type of metal "embrittlement" chemical which could be applied to aircraft surfaces surreptitiously, which would facilitate them failing due to fracture.
Well, just Googled this subject, and here is what it says,
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005...rdon_liddy.html
QUOTE
December 09, 2005
G. Gordon Liddy on Terrorism
I remember reading this fictional account by G. Gordon Liddy when it first appeared in Omni in 1989. I wouldn't say he "predicted attack on America," but he did produce an entertaining piece of fiction.
The rendering of U.S. jet equipment inventory unusable cannot be attributed to the events of second August. The intelligence community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are, however, unanimously in agreement that the two are part of the same overall operation. This conclusion is based primarily upon the evidence taken from the body of a female slain by SEAL Team 3 on second August in the San Diego area while she was participating in the attack on the national electrical power distribution system (next heading). But for this fortuitous event, the sudden failure of several aircraft belonging to each U.S. carrier would still be blamed on age (a la the 1988 Aloha aircraft incident, when metal fatigue caused the roof of a Boeing 737 to rupture in flight). As it is, we have had to ground the U.S. civil commercial aviation fleet for an indefinite time, but at least we know what to look for. Japanese intelligence has confirmed that the body that the body of the woman slain by the SEALs is that of a member of their "Red Army" group. On her person was an item at first thought unrelated to her mission: what appeared to be a U.S.-made Magic Marker, which, although not dried out, did not mark. The fluid it contained has now been identified by researchers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as nearly chemically identical to our classified liquid metal embrittlement (LME) agent. Unfortunately, prior to being added to the classified technologies list, the LME agent was discussed in open literature.
(emphasis mine)
Part of 1 response to the above quote is:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
December 09, 2005 G. Gordon Liddy on Terrorism I remember reading this fictional account by G. Gordon Liddy when it first appeared in Omni in 1989. I wouldn't say he "predicted attack on America," but he did produce an entertaining piece of fiction. The rendering of U.S. jet equipment inventory unusable cannot be attributed to the events of second August. The intelligence community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are, however, unanimously in agreement that the two are part of the same overall operation. This conclusion is based primarily upon the evidence taken from the body of a female slain by SEAL Team 3 on second August in the San Diego area while she was participating in the attack on the national electrical power distribution system (next heading). But for this fortuitous event, the sudden failure of several aircraft belonging to each U.S. carrier would still be blamed on age (a la the 1988 Aloha aircraft incident, when metal fatigue caused the roof of a Boeing 737 to rupture in flight). As it is, we have had to ground the U.S. civil commercial aviation fleet for an indefinite time, but at least we know what to look for. Japanese intelligence has confirmed that the body that the body of the woman slain by the SEALs is that of a member of their "Red Army" group. On her person was an item at first thought unrelated to her mission: what appeared to be a U.S.-made Magic Marker, which, although not dried out, did not mark. The fluid it contained has now been identified by researchers at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as nearly chemically identical to our classified liquid metal embrittlement (LME) agent. Unfortunately, prior to being added to the classified technologies list, the LME agent was discussed in open literature. |
(emphasis mine)
Part of 1 response to the above quote is:
Liquid metal (specifically, aluminium alloy) embrittlement agents do exist, have been discussed in the open literature (including safety posters at airports!) and are already on the list of things prohibited from aircraft -- and have been for many years, in fact long before Liddy wrote that article. The main concern is accidental leakage rather than terrorism. As a form of terrorism (rather than industrial sabotage) it's a non-starter, because the aircraft failure occurs long after application, so even the attacker doesn't know if he was actually responsible.
The Magic Marker would not be a particularly effective way to apply it. The material has to come in direct contact with structurally significant aluminium alloy components, and there is no such access from within the cabin. Conceivably you could attack unpainted doors while standing in a jetway, but I suspect people would object.
This poster implies that this would only work on aluminum alloys, but doesn't say why.
I doubtfull that anybody could actually apply LME to just most of the column bolts, on every floor, but I'm basically guessing.
QUOTE
I could only explain it like this. Imagine the detail on all 4 sides.
Ah-h-h, maybe it's just me, but this isn't much of an explanation.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
The schematic diagram is labelled to state the Core floors were 5" of lightweight concrete / no aggregate. It is my understanding that lightweight concrete was used in the 4" concrete on the truss floors (which ran from the central core to the perimeter columns), but that the core floors were heavier weight regular concrete. Does anyone have substantiating evidence that the central core concrete floors were also lightweight concrete?
It seems that we have progressed from the concrete core to floors that had C-4 explosives incorporated into the concrete at the time of construction.
I find this to be a little on the wacky side. The idea of incorporating explosives into any building at the time of construction does not seem realistic. Rumours of secret emplacements would have to be backed up with some kind of evidence to show that such interruptions in a hurried construction project actually took place. Such interruptions would surely have stood out like a sore thumb and raised suspicions amongst every construction worker on the site. Such 'secrets' would not remain secrets for long, especially after the explosive collapses. Not all of those construction workers would be quiet about it.
That is a completely different level of 'possibility' as opposed to the surreptitious planting of explosives by a few covert installers.
I'd call this {explosives planted at the time of construction} theory 'possible' but improbable.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 04:20 AM)
Local #1 Ironworkers
http://www.topflange.com/index.htm
http://www.topflange.com/Gallery2_FrameSet.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Excellent research reasonwhy. Great photo. Not only does the photo show the placement of the columns within the core... it also refutes NIST's claims that the interior core columns were much smaller than the 12" x 36" core perimeter columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004.html
The statements that "there exists absolutely no evidence for steel core columns inside the core", is clearly shown to be erroneous, while... OTOH there IS No evidence in this photo of a concrete box core whatsoever.
It was a clever semantic ploy to call the central core interior columns 'elevator guide rails'. Certainly the interior box columns would have played a role in some way as 'elevator guide rails'. This is shown in numerous diagrams of the central core.
QUOTE
by Christophera
What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
What is astounding is the cut. It made me really think about how that could be done. Definintely not a thermite cut, not a torch cut either. I've never seen anything like it.
The photo certainly comes from a lower level of the pit. I would assume that this photo was taken after all the debris has been cleared off the top.
As they worked they way down through the pile, they would be cutting any protruding, still-standing columns, and in my opinion that is why they all appear 'cut' at about the same level. They cut them off when they were at 'ground level' and then excavated down around them, until they got to transportable lengths sticking up, then cut em off again, and so on right down to the foundations.
One of the best collections I've found on the original engineering aspects of the WTC was gathered together by the anonymous author of the Guardian / Nerdcities site. (now cached at Hoffmans site)...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
That image would have to be the best evidence for steel interior core columns yet. The size discrepency between those inside the core area and those on the outside is still large. Freight elevators had larger guide rails and heavy structures at the bottom to support the rails overhead.
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
If those were interior core columns, then at the elevation of the top of this photo, they would be protruding from the top of the core if they were continuous. The cuts are not salvage torch cuts and, floors create a level plane.
I've made a mistake in identifying these as interior box columns. They are freight elevator rails or their base sections with lateral bracing brackets.
They are about the right thickness for about the 80th floor but the brackets on the side match the horizontal connections I've notated on this image.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
In the high res link, green arrows are salvage cuts and the red arrow is the bracket shown above in the image of the stackd columns. To the left are the row of "Massive Box Columns" interior box columns outside one side of a core. The tops are cut square and level with each other. The elevator guide rails are salvage cuts, as Foxx says, cut at the top of the debri piles, not square and not level, but approximately so.
If those were steel core columns, they would show here.
And they would be seen here, instead of fine vertical elements that really can only be rebar.
and here.
and here.
And here, between the interior box columns and the stairwell.
Then, the 17 feet is accounted for here. Proportion is fairly easy to see, the width on the long side of the core out to the perimeter walls is too narrow.
Christophera, maybe you could start your own thread about your concrete core and stop posting the same pics over and over and over on this one. Just a thought.
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 19 2006, 09:14 AM)
Christophera, maybe you could start your own thread about your concrete core and stop posting the same pics over and over and over on this one. Just a thought.
Does this mean you are convinced that free fall and total pulverization are accomodated by a concrete core and FEMA has misrepresented the structure the towers actually were?
Does this mean you are convinced that free fall and total pulverization are accomodated by a concrete core and FEMA has misrepresented the structure the towers actually were?
QUOTE
by Christophera
Foxx is intentionally clouding things, this bodes badly for sincerity score. It may not be intentional. The impasse is simply one where I fairly demand that if I have to produce proof of concrete, they must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area, or at the very least explain WHY the steel is totally unseen in all photos.
Foxx is intentionally clouding things, this bodes badly for sincerity score. It may not be intentional. The impasse is simply one where I fairly demand that if I have to produce proof of concrete, they must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area, or at the very least explain WHY the steel is totally unseen in all photos.
Beg your pardon? I am intentionally clouding 'things' ? Sounds a bit like... "Faux Lies".
You were asked to produce "proof of concrete", and as far as I have seen you have failed to do so.
You state that you "fairly demand" that 'we' "must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area".
This has been done (more than adequately), regardless of your attempts to waffle around the evidence with 'pope-ish' proclamations which again you don't seem able to support.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Christophera Foxx is intentionally clouding things, this bodes badly for sincerity score. It may not be intentional. The impasse is simply one where I fairly demand that if I have to produce proof of concrete, they must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area, or at the very least explain WHY the steel is totally unseen in all photos. |
Beg your pardon? I am intentionally clouding 'things' ? Sounds a bit like... "Faux Lies".
You were asked to produce "proof of concrete", and as far as I have seen you have failed to do so.
You state that you "fairly demand" that 'we' "must produce proof of heavy steel inside the core area".
This has been done (more than adequately), regardless of your attempts to waffle around the evidence with 'pope-ish' proclamations which again you don't seem able to support.
bla, bla, blah...there is huge evidence for the concrete core and virtually no raw evidence for the multiple steel core columns.
Uhhhhhh ... see the above.
We can't tell from the above photo what depth in the pit the photo was taken, but all of these core columns appear to be virtually the same size --- MASSIVE when considered in scale to the people in the photo.
We can also tell that these columns do not show evidence of demolition at this level, the tops have all been cut by torch (at least that is how it appears to me when viewing the supersized photo).
We can also see that there there is NO evidence of a 17 foot thick concrete box in proximity to the outer columns (as you have claimed).
The site you have put together...
http://concretecore.741.com/
...is so full of distortions, engineering misconceptions, and outright errors (to any who have actually studied the central core of the WTC towers), that I won't waste time by pointing out ALL these errors here.
QUOTE
What metamars has done with his post is something a disinfo would never do. Try to help a group to work together, through differences, towards agreement.
You seem to be dropping hints that I am a 'disinfo'. It does not surprise me that someone who promotes the nonsense you are, will view others who refute your notions as 'disinfos'.
You keep referring to this mysterious 1990 documentary that coincidentally, no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever seen or mentioned. As a matter of fact, there are numerous claims made by yourself as having 'inside' knowledge... that no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever implied. The un-named author of the Guardian/Nerdcities site (which was first published soon after 9/11), amply demonstrated his 'inside' knowledge of the construction details of the towers when the authorities were trying their best to cover-up and hide those details --- and he NEVER mentioned this 'concrete core secret' / 'BS'.
You continually post the above photo (which clearly shows interior box columns) and yet claim somehow that it doesn't show massive interior box columns, but rather shows much smaller 'elevator guide rails' (as you call them). It is interesting to note that this cropped photo does not show the perimeter columns for comparison. As can be seen (in uncropped photos), these interior steel box columns are MUCH larger than the perimeter columns...
When reasonwhy posted the photo which clearly shows placement and size of these interior core box columns you state...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What metamars has done with his post is something a disinfo would never do. Try to help a group to work together, through differences, towards agreement. |
You seem to be dropping hints that I am a 'disinfo'. It does not surprise me that someone who promotes the nonsense you are, will view others who refute your notions as 'disinfos'.
You keep referring to this mysterious 1990 documentary that coincidentally, no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever seen or mentioned. As a matter of fact, there are numerous claims made by yourself as having 'inside' knowledge... that no one else in the 9/11 truth movement has ever implied. The un-named author of the Guardian/Nerdcities site (which was first published soon after 9/11), amply demonstrated his 'inside' knowledge of the construction details of the towers when the authorities were trying their best to cover-up and hide those details --- and he NEVER mentioned this 'concrete core secret' / 'BS'.
You continually post the above photo (which clearly shows interior box columns) and yet claim somehow that it doesn't show massive interior box columns, but rather shows much smaller 'elevator guide rails' (as you call them). It is interesting to note that this cropped photo does not show the perimeter columns for comparison. As can be seen (in uncropped photos), these interior steel box columns are MUCH larger than the perimeter columns...
When reasonwhy posted the photo which clearly shows placement and size of these interior core box columns you state...
Those ARE interior box columns.
You admit that you were in ERROR when you previously stated that these... "interior box columns did NOT exist, and that there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support the fact that they DID exist"...
...yet you quickly change directions to discuss the 'cut' of these columns and imply this is evidence of your "Installed at Construction Explosives" theory.
You carry on to say...
QUOTE
The size discrepency between those inside the core area and those on the outside is still large.
Well, I don't see that at all. Either you or I needs to make an appointment with an optometrist. They appear slightly smaller in photos taken much higher up, but virtually the same size in the excavation photo.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The size discrepency between those inside the core area and those on the outside is still large. |
Well, I don't see that at all. Either you or I needs to make an appointment with an optometrist. They appear slightly smaller in photos taken much higher up, but virtually the same size in the excavation photo.
The elevator guide rails are salvage cuts, as Foxx says, cut at the top of the debri piles, not square and not level, but approximately so. If those were steel core columns, they would show 'here'. (Zafar photo you use to 'prove' concrete core)
And they would be seen here, instead of fine vertical elements that really can only be rebar...
Surely you jest. You claim (from the distance that the spire photos were taken) that 3" rebar is visible ! and that is what we are seeing? Nonsense.
The photo you use which you claim shows 17' thick concrete walls is about as clear as Jayhans 'pod' photos.
I see nothing in that photo which resembles a 17' thick concrete wall. In my opinion your constant reposting of this unclear image in support of your theory is Pavlovian in nature. Do you believe that by continually saying this photo shows a 17' thick concrete wall, that you will eventually convince some that they see a 17' thick concrete wall in the photo? You MAY well be successful in this attempt with some CTers who are prone to hypnotism, but I sincerely doubt you will convince many here that they see a 17' thick concrete wall in this photo.
Can we see a hands-up of all those who believe this?
QUOTE
Then, the 17 feet is accounted for here. Proportion is fairly easy to see, the width on the long side of the core out to the perimeter walls is too narrow.
You do realize, of course, that this open area in the lobby is 5 stories in height (lets say 60 feet), and that we are looking at the narrow distance between the core and the perimeter wall (about 35 feet) ? The proportion between these two measurements seems within scale to me ... and I see no evidence at all in the lobby picture which supports this nonsensical 17' thick concrete wall you allege.
In short, Christophera... virtually ALL the 'evidence' you point to is either innocent misunderstanding on your part (in which case you need to re-evalute your theory)... or you have an agenda which is not in keeping with truth.
Theories such as yours and Jayhans are great fodder for the OCT's to promote strawman issues with which to attack the 9/11 truth movement. I'm sure the skulking OCT's wish you great luck in promoting this story, and that the 9/11 truth movement will implode from within by the promotion of such nonsense.
WHO benefits from the promotion of your unsupportable theory? Surely NOT the 9/11 truth movement.
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 06:39 PM)
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that. (Actually the particular quote I was looking for was on the OTIS site somewhere.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 06:39 PM)
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 19 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 06:39 PM)
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
Wrong 'guest'...
Perhaps my wording below the picture was unclear. I did not mean that NIST shows that diagram, but rather that NIST shows that the core was a post & beam construction (similar to the diagram that PBS used).
The diagram...
IS from the PBS special, but they misinform when they imply the core construction was NOT standard typical post and beam construction, (just as represented in the diagram I use above).
All the central core columns on EVERY floor were transversly braced in all directions with massive lintel beams bolted AND welded to the columns.
The NIST diagrams clearly show that the core was constructed in the post & lintel method, NOTHING similar to the truss floors which extended from the core to the perimeter columns...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 19 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 06:39 PM)
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Thanks newton, I was looking for that.
I believe what they mean by reinforcing the steel core was by means of the transverse 2ft to 3ft beams which tied the core columns together in all directions like a traditional post & beam structure...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coll_traddesign.jpg
NIST shows this, but not in proper scale...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
The quote you use clearly shows that the walls of the core were multiple layers of gyprock / drywall... NOT concrete.
That is from the PBS special and not NIST. It shows how the WTC was not constructed.
Right on. They exploited the ambiguous qualities of this image.
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, which does not look into the core area so the computer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis for a core description in a bogus video recently produced. In the video, the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the the similar image lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
QUOTE
by Christophera
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 06:39 PM)
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 buildings 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.
source
how do you reinforce the steel core?
Very good point showing the desparation of the perpetators to revert to twisting language with quasi technical expressions.
SICK!
The only thing 'WRONG' and misleading regarding the NIST diagrams is the scale they use in representing the transverse beams as small I beams instead of the massive stiffeners they actually were...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
Although I agree that NIST has used some clever deceit in their representations and fairy tale, to jump off the cliff of paranoia and delusion to imply that EVERYTHING NIST claims is an outright lie... is, in itself - disinformation.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
Although I agree that NIST has used some clever deceit in their representations and fairy tale, to jump off the cliff of paranoia and delusion to imply that EVERYTHING NIST claims is an outright lie... is, in itself - disinformation.
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
I think if we find out why how the large core sections were spliced together that will answer a lot of the above questions. I can not imagine they just stacked the large core columns on top of each other without welds or steel plates . All the large core columns I have seen on trucks and even in the above picture are to perfect to be cut in the field with a torch. Also none of the columns have insulation as shagster pointed out. Could the large core columns have been encased with reinforced concrete or some other material? Concrete is used for fireproofing in large buildings and would cause problems for the OCT.
This concrete was pulverized and this would allow the large core sections to fall like toothpicks because the reinforcements would be useless without the concrete or other pulverized material around it. I do not see weld, bolt or rivet marks were a plate should be to splice the large core column sections together.
Christaphoria is trying to make the concrete core looks so ridicules nobody will seriously research the subject. I don’t see how anyone could present information so poorly and not be intentional. Everything else he presents is in support of the OCT. That tell me we should look in the direction he is trying to point us away from.
I am not supporting the concrete core only that the core columns could be encased in some reinforced material.
source
another.....source
another.....source
In this study an elastic-plastic analysis is carried out in a unidirectional reinforced thermoplastic composite cantilever beam loaded by a constant single force at its free end. The composite beam consists of stainless steel fiber and low-density homogeneous polyethylene matrix. An analytical solution is performed for satisfying both the governing differential equation in the plane stresses case and boundary conditions for small plastic deformation. The composite material is assumed to be hardening linearly. The Tsai-Hill theory is used as a yield criterion. The intensity of the residual stress components of x is at the maximum at the upper or lower surfaces of the beam.
so, steel CAN be reinforced with different additives during forging. the steel core was reinforced, then it was probably pretty fookin' strong.
i notice the towers never fell down before a plane hit them.
or right after.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
I edited the post some to make sentence structure better. I'll try again from scratch since you quote reference to image without the image.
A lower image,
taken closer to level, has been used with the apropriate perspective of this
in a video to "simulate" the core.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
I edited the post some to make sentence structure better. I'll try again from scratch since you quote reference to image without the image.
A lower image,
taken closer to level, has been used with the apropriate perspective of this
in a video to "simulate" the core.
The photo (image) you post of the ladder structures gives us no information at all about the construction of the central core... for all we know these ladder structures may have been sections of the angled corners of the perimeter framework (which is the explanation I lean towards).
I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that these ladder structures were from the core, nor how they are evidence of anything related to the core.
They MAY have been parts of the core, but I don't see any discernable evidence of that which we can conclude from that particular image to support such (or extended hypothesis related to the core that can be determined from a couple of ladder structures falling through thin air).
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
I think if we find out why how the large core sections were spliced together that will answer a lot of the above questions. I can not imagine they just stacked the large core columns on top of each other without welds or steel plates . All the large core columns I have seen on trucks and even in the above picture are to perfect to be cut in the field with a torch. Also none of the columns have insulation as shagster pointed out. Could the large core columns have been encased with reinforced concrete or some other material? Concrete is used for fireproofing in large buildings and would cause problems for the OCT.
This concrete was pulverized and this would allow the large core sections to fall like toothpicks because the reinforcements would be useless without the concrete or other pulverized material around it. I do not see weld, bolt or rivet marks were a plate should be to splice the large core column sections together.
Christaphoria is trying to make the concrete core looks so ridicules nobody will seriously research the subject. I don’t see how anyone could present information so poorly and not be intentional. Everything else he presents is in support of the OCT. That tell me we should look in the direction he is trying to point us away from.
I am not supporting the concrete core only that the core columns could be encased in some reinforced material.
The far end of the top column has a special salvage "safety" cut, to give an idea of what a torch cut looks like closer. Someone posted an image ealier in the thread that had a column end in the left side of the image showing a scarfed off clete or braket with slag dripping over the face of the rusted, square sheared column end. The DI's have long buried it.
Those column ends freak me out. So much so I revised my column cutting floors diagram to show the C4 in green with another steel plate on top of it.
Sandwiching C4 between 2 plates that touched the column would sever it in away VERY close to what we see. Prior to revision the drawing showed a method that would have created only one smooth edge on the bottom column. I've not yet seen the edge anywhere that would be left on the top column sheared. It would have a ragged, slightly wavey tilting inward, thinned, edgelike margin.
If the columns had been encased in concrete, they would have some concrete stuck to them in spots, they would have large areas or rust from separation and moisture. The long chunks with the shape of the hand fabbed column would be laying all over the place instead of SAND & GRAVEL
The research on the core is done. We need to get CREDIBLE authority to focus on this responsibly in a political, legal fashion.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Please link to your "steel core column" page that uses raw photographic evidence to make it's case. Since I know exactly what is available to make that case, I know it cannot be made so I offer an out. Link to the page that gives a credible explanation of why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not seen in images of the demolition. Following through with this will serve to retain your credibility.
Authority is in queston here, information from authority must qualify by consistency with raw evidence and witness, unless of course you are recommending people just settle for lies.
QUOTE
Carbide reinforced steel composites are useful in extensive wear resistance applications. Titanium carbide reinforced steel composites have been prepared by dissolving a TiC rich Fe–TiC master alloy in a liquid steel. The composites have been characterised by optical microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray scanning electron microscope analysis, image analysis, and X-ray diffraction studies. Tensile strength measurements showed that the ultimate tensile strengths varied between 790 and 880 MPa for composites containing 0·7–0·34 wt-%Ti. Some composites show better wear resistance properties in comparison with low alloy steels.
another.....source
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Carbide reinforced steel composites are useful in extensive wear resistance applications. Titanium carbide reinforced steel composites have been prepared by dissolving a TiC rich Fe–TiC master alloy in a liquid steel. The composites have been characterised by optical microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray scanning electron microscope analysis, image analysis, and X-ray diffraction studies. Tensile strength measurements showed that the ultimate tensile strengths varied between 790 and 880 MPa for composites containing 0·7–0·34 wt-%Ti. Some composites show better wear resistance properties in comparison with low alloy steels. |
another.....source
In this study an elastic-plastic analysis is carried out in a unidirectional reinforced thermoplastic composite cantilever beam loaded by a constant single force at its free end. The composite beam consists of stainless steel fiber and low-density homogeneous polyethylene matrix. An analytical solution is performed for satisfying both the governing differential equation in the plane stresses case and boundary conditions for small plastic deformation. The composite material is assumed to be hardening linearly. The Tsai-Hill theory is used as a yield criterion. The intensity of the residual stress components of x is at the maximum at the upper or lower surfaces of the beam.
so, steel CAN be reinforced with different additives during forging. the steel core was reinforced, then it was probably pretty fookin' strong.
i notice the towers never fell down before a plane hit them.
or right after.
Hi reasonwhy. With regard to your above observations...
It is my opinion that the central core columns were not sprayed with fire-proofing, and that because they were encased in gyprock, that it is the gyprock that the engineers / designers depended upon as fire-proofing. I have only seen evidence which leads me to believe that only the trusses and exterior columns were applied with the spray-on fire-proofing. I could be wrong on this, but it seems logical to me that given the core columns were encased in gyprock (another fire-proofing material), that they wouldn't be concerned about spraying them with additional fire-proofing before encasing them in the gyprock. The gyprock would easily be removed from the core columns whereas either concrete or the sprayed on coating would tend to stick to the columns and we'd probably see bits of that stuck to them.
Just mho.
PS - also I believe that the columns were welded as shown in this photo...
... as can be seen (the line) just above the transverse beams.
NIST claims they were just bolted together with splices, but in view of the photographic evidence and common sense - I believe that NIST is misinforming on this point.
It is my opinion that the central core columns were not sprayed with fire-proofing, and that because they were encased in gyprock, that it is the gyprock that the engineers / designers depended upon as fire-proofing. I have only seen evidence which leads me to believe that only the trusses and exterior columns were applied with the spray-on fire-proofing. I could be wrong on this, but it seems logical to me that given the core columns were encased in gyprock (another fire-proofing material), that they wouldn't be concerned about spraying them with additional fire-proofing before encasing them in the gyprock. The gyprock would easily be removed from the core columns whereas either concrete or the sprayed on coating would tend to stick to the columns and we'd probably see bits of that stuck to them.
Just mho.
PS - also I believe that the columns were welded as shown in this photo...
... as can be seen (the line) just above the transverse beams.
NIST claims they were just bolted together with splices, but in view of the photographic evidence and common sense - I believe that NIST is misinforming on this point.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE
by Christophera
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
I edited the post some to make sentence structure better. I'll try again from scratch since you quote reference to image without the image.
A lower image,
taken closer to level, has been used with the apropriate perspective of this
in a video to "simulate" the core.
there was definitely a sprayed on insulation on a lot of the steel. i've seen claims that the core columns were only protected by a double layer of gyprock.
i dunno.
check this out, though..
anyone think of a good reason NOT to pour concrete into the box columns?
i dunno.
check this out, though..
QUOTE
Abstract:
This paper is concerned with the ductility, strength and stability behaviour of concrete filled steel box columns. A cross-sectional analysis procedure which considers the nonlinear material properties of steel and concrete has been developed. The steel behaviour includes the presence of residual strains and stresses. A parametric study is undertaken to monitor the influence of residual stresses, concrete strength and steel strength on the thrust–moment–curvature response. A parameter known as the ductility ratio is calculated and this gives an indication of the ability of a structural member to deform. From the results of the thrust–moment–curvature response, strength interaction diagrams are also developed. Slender column behaviour for these structural members is described and methods by which to determine the strength are discussed. A design example is presented which shows the use of both the strength interaction diagrams and the slender column buckling procedure developed by other researchers. Further research areas are then outlined and discussed in order to elucidate the behaviour and design of these highly efficient column members in tall buildings. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This paper is concerned with the ductility, strength and stability behaviour of concrete filled steel box columns. A cross-sectional analysis procedure which considers the nonlinear material properties of steel and concrete has been developed. The steel behaviour includes the presence of residual strains and stresses. A parametric study is undertaken to monitor the influence of residual stresses, concrete strength and steel strength on the thrust–moment–curvature response. A parameter known as the ductility ratio is calculated and this gives an indication of the ability of a structural member to deform. From the results of the thrust–moment–curvature response, strength interaction diagrams are also developed. Slender column behaviour for these structural members is described and methods by which to determine the strength are discussed. A design example is presented which shows the use of both the strength interaction diagrams and the slender column buckling procedure developed by other researchers. Further research areas are then outlined and discussed in order to elucidate the behaviour and design of these highly efficient column members in tall buildings. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
anyone think of a good reason NOT to pour concrete into the box columns?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE
by Christophera
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
But what this does not show is the center lattice.
Another image taken lower of the building, at the same stage, does not look into the core area so the compuer generated 3d grid quoted above had some credibility as a basis in a bogus video recently produced. In the video the lattice quoted, was superimposed over the image, similar but lower than the above to supposedly "simulate" the core.
Would you mind translating that to unobfuscated English?
I edited the post some to make sentence structure better. I'll try again from scratch since you quote reference to image without the image.
A lower image,
taken closer to level, has been used with the apropriate perspective of this
in a video to "simulate" the core.
The photo (image) you post of the ladder structures gives us no information at all about the construction of the central core... for all we know these ladder structures may have been sections of the angled corners of the perimeter framework (which is the explanation I lean towards).
I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that these ladder structures were from the core, nor how they are evidence of anything related to the core.
They MAY have been parts of the core, but I don't see any discernable evidence of that which we can conclude from that particular image to support such (or extended hypothesis related to the core that can be determined from a couple of ladder structures falling through thin air).
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 12:16 PM)
Hi reasonwhy. With regard to your above observations...
It is my opinion that the central core columns were not sprayed with fire-proofing, and that because they were encased in gyprock, that it is the gyprock that the engineers / designers depended upon as fire-proofing. I have only seen evidence which leads me to believe that only the trusses and exterior columns were applied with the spray-on fire-proofing. I could be wrong on this, but it seems logical to me that given the core columns were encased in gyprock (another fire-proofing material), that they wouldn't be concerned about spraying them with additional fire-proofing before encasing them in the gyprock. The gyprock would easily be removed from the core columns whereas either concrete or the sprayed on coating would tend to stick to the columns and we'd probably see bits of that stuck to them.
Just mho.
PS - also I believe that the columns were welded as shown in this photo...
... as can be seen (the line) just above the transverse beams.
NIST claims they were just bolted together with splices, but in view of the photographic evidence and common sense - I believe that NIST is misinforming on this point.
Foxx, this is what I would expect. I just don’t understand the square ends of all the core columns without bolt holes or weld marks from attachment plates. It has puzzled me every time I look at photos of the colomns.
It is my opinion that the central core columns were not sprayed with fire-proofing, and that because they were encased in gyprock, that it is the gyprock that the engineers / designers depended upon as fire-proofing. I have only seen evidence which leads me to believe that only the trusses and exterior columns were applied with the spray-on fire-proofing. I could be wrong on this, but it seems logical to me that given the core columns were encased in gyprock (another fire-proofing material), that they wouldn't be concerned about spraying them with additional fire-proofing before encasing them in the gyprock. The gyprock would easily be removed from the core columns whereas either concrete or the sprayed on coating would tend to stick to the columns and we'd probably see bits of that stuck to them.
Just mho.
PS - also I believe that the columns were welded as shown in this photo...
... as can be seen (the line) just above the transverse beams.
NIST claims they were just bolted together with splices, but in view of the photographic evidence and common sense - I believe that NIST is misinforming on this point.
Foxx, this is what I would expect. I just don’t understand the square ends of all the core columns without bolt holes or weld marks from attachment plates. It has puzzled me every time I look at photos of the colomns.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 19 2006, 08:01 PM)
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
I think if we find out why how the large core sections were spliced together that will answer a lot of the above questions. I can not imagine they just stacked the large core columns on top of each other without welds or steel plates . All the large core columns I have seen on trucks and even in the above picture are to perfect to be cut in the field with a torch. Also none of the columns have insulation as shagster pointed out. Could the large core columns have been encased with reinforced concrete or some other material? Concrete is used for fireproofing in large buildings and would cause problems for the OCT.
This concrete was pulverized and this would allow the large core sections to fall like toothpicks because the reinforcements would be useless without the concrete or other pulverized material around it. I do not see weld, bolt or rivet marks were a plate should be to splice the large core column sections together.
Christaphoria is trying to make the concrete core looks so ridicules nobody will seriously research the subject. I don’t see how anyone could present information so poorly and not be intentional. Everything else he presents is in support of the OCT. That tell me we should look in the direction he is trying to point us away from.
I am not supporting the concrete core only that the core columns could be encased in some reinforced material.
The far end of the top column has a special salvage "safety" cut, to give an idea of what a torch cut looks like closer. Someone posted an image ealier in the thread that had a column end in the left side of the image showing a scarfed off clete or braket with slag dripping over the face of the rusted, square sheared column end. The DI's have long buried it.
Those column ends freak me out. So much so I revised my column cutting floors diagram to show the C4 in green with another steel plate on top of it.
Sandwiching C4 between 2 plates that touched the column would sever it in away VERY close to what we see. Prior to revision the drawing showed a method that would have created only one smooth edge on the bottom column. I've not yet seen the edge anywhere that would be left on the top column sheared. It would have a ragged, slightly wavey tilting inward, thinned, edgelike margin.
If the columns had been encased in concrete, they would have some concrete stuck to them in spots, they would have large areas or rust from separation and moisture. The long chunks with the shape of the hand fabbed column would be laying all over the place instead of SAND & GRAVEL
The research on the core is done. We need to get CREDIBLE authority to focus on this responsibly in a political, legal fashion.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Please link to your "steel core column" page that uses raw photographic evidence to make it's case. Since I know exactly what is available to make that case, I know it cannot be made so I offer an out. Link to the page that gives a credible explanation of why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not seen in images of the demolition. Following through with this will serve to retain your credibility.
Authority is in queston here, information from authority must qualify by consistency with raw evidence and witness, unless of course you are recommending people just settle for lies.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 19 2006, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+)
taken closer to level, has been used with the apropriate perspective of this.
in a video to "simulate" the core.
The photo (image) you post of the ladder structures gives us no information at all about the construction of the central core... for all we know these ladder structures may have been sections of the angled corners of the perimeter framework (which is the explanation I lean towards).
I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that these ladder structures were from the core, nor how they are evidence of anything related to the core.
They MAY have been parts of the core, but I don't see any discernable evidence of that which we can conclude from that particular image to support such (or extended hypothesis related to the core that can be determined from a couple of ladder structures falling through thin air).
Relived to see you can state the obvious, regretfully you omit reference to the real point.
The illogical has been presented to the public by PBS.
I present the logical as I learned it from PBS in 1990. Something changed BIG TIME in government in the interim.
in a video to "simulate" the core.
The photo (image) you post of the ladder structures gives us no information at all about the construction of the central core... for all we know these ladder structures may have been sections of the angled corners of the perimeter framework (which is the explanation I lean towards).
I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that these ladder structures were from the core, nor how they are evidence of anything related to the core.
They MAY have been parts of the core, but I don't see any discernable evidence of that which we can conclude from that particular image to support such (or extended hypothesis related to the core that can be determined from a couple of ladder structures falling through thin air).
Relived to see you can state the obvious, regretfully you omit reference to the real point.
The illogical has been presented to the public by PBS.
I present the logical as I learned it from PBS in 1990. Something changed BIG TIME in government in the interim.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 08:04 PM)
source
another.....source
another.....source
In this study an elastic-plastic analysis is carried out in a unidirectional reinforced thermoplastic composite cantilever beam loaded by a constant single force at its free end. The composite beam consists of stainless steel fiber and low-density homogeneous polyethylene matrix. An analytical solution is performed for satisfying both the governing differential equation in the plane stresses case and boundary conditions for small plastic deformation. The composite material is assumed to be hardening linearly. The Tsai-Hill theory is used as a yield criterion. The intensity of the residual stress components of x is at the maximum at the upper or lower surfaces of the beam.
so, steel CAN be reinforced with different additives during forging. the steel core was reinforced, then it was probably pretty fookin' strong.
i notice the towers never fell down before a plane hit them.
or right after.
Newt,
Wear resistant is for like, bucket teeth, and rippers and cutting edges. Like the bucket teeth just visible on the right side of the track controls on this excavator peeking out from underneath the window joint.
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
i like it when we can all agree on something.
towers fall too fast, too soon.
towers too cold for such behaviour.
too much pulverisation.
too much SECRECY causes good folk to distrust their own shadows.
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
i like it when we can all agree on something.
towers fall too fast, too soon.
towers too cold for such behaviour.
too much pulverisation.
too much SECRECY causes good folk to distrust their own shadows.
Damm, just about the time I'd actually use an emoticon, I can't find the grinning beer mug toasting smilie.
You hit the nail on the head. Ending secrecy.
G
gordon, i can answer part of number five(with second hand info, of course).
the cranes were not part of the final structure. they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, so to speak, and then were dismantled and lowered over the edge. it WAS a shill that told me this, but i believe he was honest about this much.
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
DUH! Nothing happens without money. look at 911thruth: "911Truth.org continues its important work only through the generous donations of concerned individuals like you, and we appreciate every single penny!" or look at Open911.org: "Please Help us Match Mr. Walter's $850,00"
You are desperate if you think asking for money somehow discredits someone. What is your agenda that you would even try to make such a claim?
The full quote is: "We need to raise funds so we can raise our voices so all Americans can learn the truth: We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the U.S. government engineered it."
QUOTE
Carbide reinforced steel composites are useful in extensive wear resistance applications. Titanium carbide reinforced steel composites have been prepared by dissolving a TiC rich Fe–TiC master alloy in a liquid steel. The composites have been characterised by optical microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray scanning electron microscope analysis, image analysis, and X-ray diffraction studies. Tensile strength measurements showed that the ultimate tensile strengths varied between 790 and 880 MPa for composites containing 0·7–0·34 wt-%Ti. Some composites show better wear resistance properties in comparison with low alloy steels.
another.....source
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Carbide reinforced steel composites are useful in extensive wear resistance applications. Titanium carbide reinforced steel composites have been prepared by dissolving a TiC rich Fe–TiC master alloy in a liquid steel. The composites have been characterised by optical microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray scanning electron microscope analysis, image analysis, and X-ray diffraction studies. Tensile strength measurements showed that the ultimate tensile strengths varied between 790 and 880 MPa for composites containing 0·7–0·34 wt-%Ti. Some composites show better wear resistance properties in comparison with low alloy steels. |
another.....source
In this study an elastic-plastic analysis is carried out in a unidirectional reinforced thermoplastic composite cantilever beam loaded by a constant single force at its free end. The composite beam consists of stainless steel fiber and low-density homogeneous polyethylene matrix. An analytical solution is performed for satisfying both the governing differential equation in the plane stresses case and boundary conditions for small plastic deformation. The composite material is assumed to be hardening linearly. The Tsai-Hill theory is used as a yield criterion. The intensity of the residual stress components of x is at the maximum at the upper or lower surfaces of the beam.
so, steel CAN be reinforced with different additives during forging. the steel core was reinforced, then it was probably pretty fookin' strong.
i notice the towers never fell down before a plane hit them.
or right after.
Newt,
Wear resistant is for like, bucket teeth, and rippers and cutting edges. Like the bucket teeth just visible on the right side of the track controls on this excavator peeking out from underneath the window joint.
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 10:04 PM)
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
i like it when we can all agree on something.
towers fall too fast, too soon.
towers too cold for such behaviour.
too much pulverisation.
too much SECRECY causes good folk to distrust their own shadows.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 12:59 PM)
[
The research on the core is done. We need to get CREDIBLE authority to focus on this responsibly in a political, legal fashion.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Thanks to you, my research on the core columns is just starting. Your drawing is missing the bolt holes and the joint would fall apart.
The research on the core is done. We need to get CREDIBLE authority to focus on this responsibly in a political, legal fashion.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Thanks to you, my research on the core columns is just starting. Your drawing is missing the bolt holes and the joint would fall apart.
First point. Another photograph showing the distinctive stepped pyramid shape of top of remaining core of wtc2 visible over top of foreground building?. Not sure about the perspective on the photos on this site- definitely taken from at least two positions and seems like a change in the height or altitude of the photographer’s position
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Military/xD...02/MXNV02P02_12
Second Point
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
That photo of the bloke with the lance. Note the steel he is cutting has pieces on three mutually perpendicular axis all passing through the same point. Note also that in one direction there are twin beams running either side of the vertical. In effect there are eight legs radiating from one point. Where could this junction have come from?
The orientation of the I-beams would tend to confirm the assumption that the box section beam is in fact the vertical column as has already been suggested. That would account for two legs and leaves us with the horizontal beams running perpendicular to each other, a single beam and a pair of beams. The vertical column was not a perimeter column because this would leave at least one beam sticking out of the building, so it must be from the core. Was it on the corner, on the side, or inside the core?
Of one fact, we can be absolutely certain; unless this came from inside the core area, at least one of these horizontal beams extended from the core to the perimeter, thereby giving the lie to any attempt to say that the only lateral bracing between perimeter and core was supplied by the floors.
Irrespective of whether this size of beam was used from core to perimeter in all of the floors, we know that there were at least four beams of some description, running from core corners to perimeter on every floor level. The design would make more sense with eight such beams, since this would eliminate the need for the long length of the perimeter wall to perimeter wall transverse trusses. Four of these beams would be necessary to hold up one end of the corner floor sections, which cannot be attached directly to the core. If these beams fulfilled that purpose this would locate these beams at or near the corner. The official story concentrates on the transverse trusses and intermediate angle beams seeming to have us believe that there was no beam, but these trusses and angles would be in addition to the beam of which I talk. If this was not the case then these transverse trusses would meet a step increase in load as they pass outwith the core because of the additional task of holding up the ends of the corner floor sections.
So we know from that photograph that either there were beams running from core to perimeter or there were vertical steel columns within the core area. The question arises as to what storey this junction came from. Did these type of junctions exist on all of the floors or is this just from say, the maintenance floors?
Engineering News-Record, January 1, 1970.
On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.
Typical office floors have 4-in. thick slabs of composite construction using top chord knuckles of the joists (trusses), which extend into the slab, as shear connectors. On mechanical floors, composite action is provided by welded stud shear connectors.
So the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. We also know that the uppermost stories had diagonals as part of the tie in of the hat truss and we know that the lobby and basement floors were treated differently.
Notice on the videos - that the ejections at one floor level seem to greater in intensity at a point a few floors below the initiation point - what are the odds that these were the 75th and 76th floors? What was the official explanation for that? Something to do with Puff the magic dragon and a bad curry the night before wasn’t it?
Third Point- same photograph. Note the straightness of the vertical box section. Nothing unusual in that, we are told, “the bolts failed before the columns buckled” (Meanwhile the “peer reviewed” paper flatly states that this is not possible, but we won’t mention that and move quickly along. Better not mention the staggered joints of the perimeter columns either.)
So what happened to these columns which were welded and did not have bolted joints? Remarkably straight buckling failure if you ask me.
Quack. Quack. Oops.
Fourth point
If the columns were so unstable that they would fail if the floors were removed, how does that square with the lobby being six storeys in height without any floors and the full weight of the building on top of them? How many floors do we have to remove to induce this instability?
Fifth point - a question.
Were the crane supports incorporated into the finished structure? If so, is it these which we see in the “bundle of sticks with glowing ends photograph”?
Sixth point
We still have at least four legs to account for, probably five. At least some of the legs from the twin I beams or the single I beam acted as lateral bracing to the core. Note the size of these beams and remember the way that this bracing seems to be non-existent when the core falls apart like a "bundle of sticks". A very apt description.
Seventh point
Where is the concrete core? We know that there were access passages to the stairwells and lifts. We know there was horizontal bracing running through the core area. We know from the silhouette photograph that there was a passage through the core in two perpendicular directions. So that divides the core area into four areas. Can we narrow this down to one of the four areas? Is there any reason for it to be off centre? Are we getting warm?
We have to find room for stairwells and lifts as well.
From Engineering times again
Each of the tower blocks has 100 passenger lifts and four goods lifts. A lobby on the ground floor and two sky-lobbies, on the 44th and 78th floor respectively, subdivide the building into three circulation zones. Each sky-lobby is connected by eleven or twelve lifts to the ground floor. From each of the three lobbies 24 local lifts give access, to the floors above. Furthermore, five express lifts go non-stop from the ground floor to the 107th and 110th floors. As three local lifts, one above the other, can operate in the same shaft, only 56 shafts are needed to accommodate the 104 lifts in the building (the liftshafts occupy 13% of the area of each floor). Maximum transit time, including change of lift, is 2 minutes. In an emergency, a fully occupied tower block (assuming it to contain 55,000 people, including visitors) can be emptied in 5 minutes.
Eighth point
Someone asked about the plain ends on the large box columns. The join for these could be facilitated by a flange or sole plate and side brackets, which would mean that you would struggle to use them as guide rails for the lifts. It would be a bit of a bumpy ride. Alternatively they could be butt-welded, but that is a deep weld accessible from one side only so it would make them more difficult and very time consuming.
Ninth point
You cannot harden or temper mild steel because its carbon content is too low.
Gordon.
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Military/xD...02/MXNV02P02_12
Second Point
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
That photo of the bloke with the lance. Note the steel he is cutting has pieces on three mutually perpendicular axis all passing through the same point. Note also that in one direction there are twin beams running either side of the vertical. In effect there are eight legs radiating from one point. Where could this junction have come from?
The orientation of the I-beams would tend to confirm the assumption that the box section beam is in fact the vertical column as has already been suggested. That would account for two legs and leaves us with the horizontal beams running perpendicular to each other, a single beam and a pair of beams. The vertical column was not a perimeter column because this would leave at least one beam sticking out of the building, so it must be from the core. Was it on the corner, on the side, or inside the core?
Of one fact, we can be absolutely certain; unless this came from inside the core area, at least one of these horizontal beams extended from the core to the perimeter, thereby giving the lie to any attempt to say that the only lateral bracing between perimeter and core was supplied by the floors.
Irrespective of whether this size of beam was used from core to perimeter in all of the floors, we know that there were at least four beams of some description, running from core corners to perimeter on every floor level. The design would make more sense with eight such beams, since this would eliminate the need for the long length of the perimeter wall to perimeter wall transverse trusses. Four of these beams would be necessary to hold up one end of the corner floor sections, which cannot be attached directly to the core. If these beams fulfilled that purpose this would locate these beams at or near the corner. The official story concentrates on the transverse trusses and intermediate angle beams seeming to have us believe that there was no beam, but these trusses and angles would be in addition to the beam of which I talk. If this was not the case then these transverse trusses would meet a step increase in load as they pass outwith the core because of the additional task of holding up the ends of the corner floor sections.
So we know from that photograph that either there were beams running from core to perimeter or there were vertical steel columns within the core area. The question arises as to what storey this junction came from. Did these type of junctions exist on all of the floors or is this just from say, the maintenance floors?
Engineering News-Record, January 1, 1970.
On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.
Typical office floors have 4-in. thick slabs of composite construction using top chord knuckles of the joists (trusses), which extend into the slab, as shear connectors. On mechanical floors, composite action is provided by welded stud shear connectors.
So the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. We also know that the uppermost stories had diagonals as part of the tie in of the hat truss and we know that the lobby and basement floors were treated differently.
Notice on the videos - that the ejections at one floor level seem to greater in intensity at a point a few floors below the initiation point - what are the odds that these were the 75th and 76th floors? What was the official explanation for that? Something to do with Puff the magic dragon and a bad curry the night before wasn’t it?
Third Point- same photograph. Note the straightness of the vertical box section. Nothing unusual in that, we are told, “the bolts failed before the columns buckled” (Meanwhile the “peer reviewed” paper flatly states that this is not possible, but we won’t mention that and move quickly along. Better not mention the staggered joints of the perimeter columns either.)
So what happened to these columns which were welded and did not have bolted joints? Remarkably straight buckling failure if you ask me.
Quack. Quack. Oops.
Fourth point
If the columns were so unstable that they would fail if the floors were removed, how does that square with the lobby being six storeys in height without any floors and the full weight of the building on top of them? How many floors do we have to remove to induce this instability?
Fifth point - a question.
Were the crane supports incorporated into the finished structure? If so, is it these which we see in the “bundle of sticks with glowing ends photograph”?
Sixth point
We still have at least four legs to account for, probably five. At least some of the legs from the twin I beams or the single I beam acted as lateral bracing to the core. Note the size of these beams and remember the way that this bracing seems to be non-existent when the core falls apart like a "bundle of sticks". A very apt description.
Seventh point
Where is the concrete core? We know that there were access passages to the stairwells and lifts. We know there was horizontal bracing running through the core area. We know from the silhouette photograph that there was a passage through the core in two perpendicular directions. So that divides the core area into four areas. Can we narrow this down to one of the four areas? Is there any reason for it to be off centre? Are we getting warm?
We have to find room for stairwells and lifts as well.
From Engineering times again
Each of the tower blocks has 100 passenger lifts and four goods lifts. A lobby on the ground floor and two sky-lobbies, on the 44th and 78th floor respectively, subdivide the building into three circulation zones. Each sky-lobby is connected by eleven or twelve lifts to the ground floor. From each of the three lobbies 24 local lifts give access, to the floors above. Furthermore, five express lifts go non-stop from the ground floor to the 107th and 110th floors. As three local lifts, one above the other, can operate in the same shaft, only 56 shafts are needed to accommodate the 104 lifts in the building (the liftshafts occupy 13% of the area of each floor). Maximum transit time, including change of lift, is 2 minutes. In an emergency, a fully occupied tower block (assuming it to contain 55,000 people, including visitors) can be emptied in 5 minutes.
Eighth point
Someone asked about the plain ends on the large box columns. The join for these could be facilitated by a flange or sole plate and side brackets, which would mean that you would struggle to use them as guide rails for the lifts. It would be a bit of a bumpy ride. Alternatively they could be butt-welded, but that is a deep weld accessible from one side only so it would make them more difficult and very time consuming.
Ninth point
You cannot harden or temper mild steel because its carbon content is too low.
Gordon.
Hey Foxx, Sorry my connection was jacked this week. Don't know why.
These are some, anyway to post RAR file for public consumption?
These are some, anyway to post RAR file for public consumption?
I WILL HAVE A SON AND HIS NAME SHALL BE GORDON!!!!!!!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 19 2006, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 19 2006, 10:04 PM)
and stainless composite steels have nothing to do with the WTC steel. The structural steel was high temper steel. A little extra carbon, maybe a little nickel and tungsten, but well heat treated.
and you are right. The planes whacked those fookin strong buildings, nothing happened and the fires were going out so none of that had anything to do with 2 towers pulverizing identically in mid air to the ground. Not to mention they did it in the wrong order.
If it was a action adventure movie, I'd walk out.
i like it when we can all agree on something.
towers fall too fast, too soon.
towers too cold for such behaviour.
too much pulverisation.
too much SECRECY causes good folk to distrust their own shadows.
Damm, just about the time I'd actually use an emoticon, I can't find the grinning beer mug toasting smilie.
You hit the nail on the head. Ending secrecy.
Quick poll.
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 19 2006, 11:53 PM)
G
gordon, i can answer part of number five(with second hand info, of course).
the cranes were not part of the final structure. they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, so to speak, and then were dismantled and lowered over the edge. it WAS a shill that told me this, but i believe he was honest about this much.
I don't know how clearer it has to be:
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 19 2006, 11:53 PM)
Quick poll.
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
Well, I took the poll, then viewed the results. 24% of the respondents felt that WTC7 did not fall due to controlled demolition. I consider it a no-brainer that it did, so I wonder who is taking this poll? People that know about the "whopping" .5 second disparity in collapse time between the fall of the building and free fall time in a vacuum, or not?
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
Well, I took the poll, then viewed the results. 24% of the respondents felt that WTC7 did not fall due to controlled demolition. I consider it a no-brainer that it did, so I wonder who is taking this poll? People that know about the "whopping" .5 second disparity in collapse time between the fall of the building and free fall time in a vacuum, or not?
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 19 2006, 11:00 PM)
I WILL HAVE A SON AND HIS NAME SHALL BE GORDON!!!!!!!
Aw, shucks, that's nothing. :
I WILL HAVE A NEW WORLD, WHEREIN THE TELLING OF FAIRY TALES TO OTHER THAN CHILDREN WILL BE PUNISHABLE BY A YEAR IN THE SLAMMER. AND ANY TV TALKING HEAD WHO VILOATES THIS LAW WILL ENDURE HIS/HER YEAR IN THE SLAMMER WITH NO HAIRSPRAY, WHATSOEVER.
THE NEW WORLD WILL BE UNITED INTO A SINGLE KINGDOM.
AND THE KING WILL BE GORDON.
(Note: In my new world, organic vegan food will be subsidized, bad Chinese restaurants will be strictly banned, and muzak will be strictly regulated. Hopefully, Gordon agrees with these details.)
Aw, shucks, that's nothing. :
I WILL HAVE A NEW WORLD, WHEREIN THE TELLING OF FAIRY TALES TO OTHER THAN CHILDREN WILL BE PUNISHABLE BY A YEAR IN THE SLAMMER. AND ANY TV TALKING HEAD WHO VILOATES THIS LAW WILL ENDURE HIS/HER YEAR IN THE SLAMMER WITH NO HAIRSPRAY, WHATSOEVER.
THE NEW WORLD WILL BE UNITED INTO A SINGLE KINGDOM.
AND THE KING WILL BE GORDON.
(Note: In my new world, organic vegan food will be subsidized, bad Chinese restaurants will be strictly banned, and muzak will be strictly regulated. Hopefully, Gordon agrees with these details.)
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 20 2006, 04:27 AM)
I don't know how clearer it has to be:
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
i donated a million dollars to your website through paypal. i used my 'newton' gold card.
you must read all 576 pages before you can join the pope squad(unless you're just another face of shnibby the clown. 'we' wouldn't be surprised.)
we've been bowed to death with your argument, already.
slower thermite reactions could cause the gradual weaking, softening up the core for the big whack. there is no reason that the bowing was not a part of the controlled demolition.
there IS a reason to believe there were thermite reactions.
your bowing columns do not provide for molten steel found in the rubble, nor collapse times.
of course you're familiar with jane doe's billiard ball analogy?
of course, you can explain why tower 7 fell with lovely symmetry in 6.5 seconds(6.6, maybe), which is 0.5 seconds over freefall.
seeing that tower 7 was DEFINITELY demolished, it only makes sense that other buildings, like five and six, as well as 1 and 2, were ALSO wired and 'pulled'.
i don't know how (much) clearer it has to be.
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
i donated a million dollars to your website through paypal. i used my 'newton' gold card.
you must read all 576 pages before you can join the pope squad(unless you're just another face of shnibby the clown. 'we' wouldn't be surprised.)
we've been bowed to death with your argument, already.
slower thermite reactions could cause the gradual weaking, softening up the core for the big whack. there is no reason that the bowing was not a part of the controlled demolition.
there IS a reason to believe there were thermite reactions.
your bowing columns do not provide for molten steel found in the rubble, nor collapse times.
of course you're familiar with jane doe's billiard ball analogy?
of course, you can explain why tower 7 fell with lovely symmetry in 6.5 seconds(6.6, maybe), which is 0.5 seconds over freefall.
seeing that tower 7 was DEFINITELY demolished, it only makes sense that other buildings, like five and six, as well as 1 and 2, were ALSO wired and 'pulled'.
i don't know how (much) clearer it has to be.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 20 2006, 04:27 AM)
I don't know how clearer it has to be:
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
Any website that claims discussion forums like this one "undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel" are heavily suspect.
Do you really expect anyone here to take you seriously with such nonsense?
Your motives become clear when you state "we need to raise funds"
Nuff said.
*yawn*
buh bye.
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says
The point is: "There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
Any website that claims discussion forums like this one "undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel" are heavily suspect.
Do you really expect anyone here to take you seriously with such nonsense?
Your motives become clear when you state "we need to raise funds"
Nuff said.
*yawn*
buh bye.
QUOTE
Any website that claims discussion forums like this one "undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel" are heavily suspect.
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
QUOTE
Your motives become clear when you state "we need to raise funds"
DUH! Nothing happens without money. look at 911thruth: "911Truth.org continues its important work only through the generous donations of concerned individuals like you, and we appreciate every single penny!" or look at Open911.org: "Please Help us Match Mr. Walter's $850,00"
You are desperate if you think asking for money somehow discredits someone. What is your agenda that you would even try to make such a claim?
The full quote is: "We need to raise funds so we can raise our voices so all Americans can learn the truth: We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the U.S. government engineered it."
We've all seen the photos of the WTCs; early in the day, with the rising sun's light, pouring through them. Although, I found them to be absolutely gorgeous to look at, something about them was not right.
Those buildings, in my opinion, have not had their floors installed yet. You could not get that degree of unoccluded transparency, over such a range of vertical offset, from the perspective of the lens's perpendicular axis , if you had parallel dividers in place.
If we can come to some level of agreement on this; it means that the core was supported completely at the level of the mechanical floors (and the roof) only, within the perimeter walls, at this stage of construction.
Gordon stated that he observed, a structural intersection that joined from many directions. I'd bet that conjoining structure came from the mechanical levels. There had to be unique and substantial, horizontal support components, that would have existed there and nowhere else.
By inference, the mechanical floors were the primary, superstructural conjunction between the core and the peripheral (wall) network.
Also by inference, IF the buildings could stand WITHOUT the floors, between the mechanical levels, then their role as providers of lateral support, in general, are brought into question. Also, now in question, is the (reverse) theory, that the falling of these passive structures would lead to global collapse. If they didn't participate at the beginning, why would they feed back so much at the end.
I'll stop here for your perspective, if any; pro or con.
Those buildings, in my opinion, have not had their floors installed yet. You could not get that degree of unoccluded transparency, over such a range of vertical offset, from the perspective of the lens's perpendicular axis , if you had parallel dividers in place.
If we can come to some level of agreement on this; it means that the core was supported completely at the level of the mechanical floors (and the roof) only, within the perimeter walls, at this stage of construction.
Gordon stated that he observed, a structural intersection that joined from many directions. I'd bet that conjoining structure came from the mechanical levels. There had to be unique and substantial, horizontal support components, that would have existed there and nowhere else.
By inference, the mechanical floors were the primary, superstructural conjunction between the core and the peripheral (wall) network.
Also by inference, IF the buildings could stand WITHOUT the floors, between the mechanical levels, then their role as providers of lateral support, in general, are brought into question. Also, now in question, is the (reverse) theory, that the falling of these passive structures would lead to global collapse. If they didn't participate at the beginning, why would they feed back so much at the end.
I'll stop here for your perspective, if any; pro or con.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 20 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 19 2006, 11:53 PM)
Quick poll.
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
Well, I took the poll, then viewed the results. 24% of the respondents felt that WTC7 did not fall due to controlled demolition. I consider it a no-brainer that it did, so I wonder who is taking this poll? People that know about the "whopping" .5 second disparity in collapse time between the fall of the building and free fall time in a vacuum, or not?
There is a definite segment of America that votes/argues against logic for an unspoken agenda that might be termed "shared".
The curtain falls on the world center stage.
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Well, I'm sorry... but once again, the above 'distraction' of attempting to claim that there is a 'real conspiracy' that 'we' 'CTers' are hindering by discussing the explosives theory... seems SOOOOO reminiscent of the philosophy of the abberant Schneibster theory.
It is interesting to note that there has been an increase in Yahoo Geocities sites which attempt to debunk "conspiracy theories" related to 9/11 and specifically the most damaging --- that the towers and # 7 were examples of controlled demolitions.
Leading the way in this assault on the truth is NIST who has laid out a mantra (in it's Final Report) meant for repetition by sites such as the above.
The joining/association of these 'debunking' sites in a common effort of repeating the fairy tale suggests a concerted effort by a group of 'individuals' who promote Bushs agenda to attempt to associate 'CTers' with 'terrorists' and 'fifth columnists'.
To the common man on the street (who has not researched all the unanswered questions in detail), these 'debunking sites' might sound 'intelligent', believable, and as though the statements made by them (faux-evidence presented) cannot be refuted by engineering and science.
The following is taken from a response to the NIST Final Report written by Jim Hoffman.
Those who have already researched the unaswered questions in depth will not need to read the following, however, I would seriously challenge any promoters of the false NIST fairy tale to read the following and see if they can refute the observations contained within through common sense and scientific reasoning.
One thing that I can't agree MORE with regarding Hoffmans observations in my readings of the NIST reports, is the feeling I get from many sections that NIST has cleverly left open 'fall-back' positions, so that in the event that the truth is exposed, their wording is such that they will be able to claim that they did not have any Direct Participation in a cover-up, and that their opinions were 'just innocent misreadings of the actual evidence'.
I agree with Hoffmans 'take' reproduced below...
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Well, I'm sorry... but once again, the above 'distraction' of attempting to claim that there is a 'real conspiracy' that 'we' 'CTers' are hindering by discussing the explosives theory... seems SOOOOO reminiscent of the philosophy of the abberant Schneibster theory.
It is interesting to note that there has been an increase in Yahoo Geocities sites which attempt to debunk "conspiracy theories" related to 9/11 and specifically the most damaging --- that the towers and # 7 were examples of controlled demolitions.
Leading the way in this assault on the truth is NIST who has laid out a mantra (in it's Final Report) meant for repetition by sites such as the above.
The joining/association of these 'debunking' sites in a common effort of repeating the fairy tale suggests a concerted effort by a group of 'individuals' who promote Bushs agenda to attempt to associate 'CTers' with 'terrorists' and 'fifth columnists'.
To the common man on the street (who has not researched all the unanswered questions in detail), these 'debunking sites' might sound 'intelligent', believable, and as though the statements made by them (faux-evidence presented) cannot be refuted by engineering and science.
The following is taken from a response to the NIST Final Report written by Jim Hoffman.
Those who have already researched the unaswered questions in depth will not need to read the following, however, I would seriously challenge any promoters of the false NIST fairy tale to read the following and see if they can refute the observations contained within through common sense and scientific reasoning.
One thing that I can't agree MORE with regarding Hoffmans observations in my readings of the NIST reports, is the feeling I get from many sections that NIST has cleverly left open 'fall-back' positions, so that in the event that the truth is exposed, their wording is such that they will be able to claim that they did not have any Direct Participation in a cover-up, and that their opinions were 'just innocent misreadings of the actual evidence'.
I agree with Hoffmans 'take' reproduced below...
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
The main difference between the Draft and the Final Report is the addition in the Final Report of Section 6.14.4, "Events Following Collapse Initiation," which consists of five paragraphs filling half a page. This section apparently constitutes the "little analysis of the structural behavior" following "collapse initiation" mentioned in the Executive Summary. Section 6.14.4 promotes the pile-driver theory with a circular argument; cherry-picks, misrepresents, and dismisses with faulty arguments evidence of controlled demolition; and attacks the demolition hypothesis by melding it with hoaxes.
The Pile-Driver Theory, Again
The first two paragraphs of the new section reiterate the pile-driver theory using similar language and vagueness to many earlier tellings of the theory.
NIST Quote :
Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structures below to absorb that through energy of deformation. (p 146/196)
Note the observations that the structure below was "not able to arrest this initial movement," and "offered minimal resistance."
The Report implies that this was because the force of the falling mass destroyed the intact structure below it. It does not actually state this, however, or rule out the shattering of structure by explosives as the reason for the minimal resistance. Instead, it states that the energy of the falling mass exceeded the "energy of deformation" that the intact structures could supply.
That may or may not be true, but the intact structure could have arrested the downward movement of the top without deforming by simply transmitting the impact forces to the ground.
These nuances of meaning will not be noticed by the casual reader but could provide the investigators with an out in the event that they are charged with covering up the crime of the intentional controlled demolition of the Towers. Statements that are grossly misleading but legally defensible because they are technically true are one of the hallmarks of a sophisticated cover-up.
Perfunctory Explanations of Two Features
The next two paragraphs in the new section are the only places in the Report where NIST addresses critiques that the Draft Report avoided considering evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. The third paragraph addresses the rapid rate of fall. It reads:
NIST Quote :
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)
This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.
The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
Like virtually every other endorsement of the pile-driver theory, NIST's is entirely free of quantitative detail. Why does NIST not even attempt to quantify the amount of energy that the top of each Tower would accumulate after a free-fall of one story -- an easy calculation? Perhaps because it would draw attention to the many problems of the pile-driver theory, including:
- No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.
- Photographs and videos show the top of both Towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, disproving the existence of the supposed pile drivers.
- Most of the rubble appears to fall outside of the Towers' footprint, thus being unavailable to crush the intact structure.
- Rubble falls through the air outside of the Towers' profiles at about the same speed it falls through their profiles, showing that the structures below provided little to no more resistance than air.
The fourth paragraph addresses the jets of dust, often called "squibs." It reads:
NIST Quote :
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. (p 146/196)
NIST conceals the nature of the energetic ejections by describing them only as material "forc[ed] ... out the windows". It does not mention any resources for examining this evidence, such as these video frames showing dust ejections from the North Tower.
When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
- No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
- The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
- The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
- The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.
NIST thus attempts to explain away only two of the six features of controlled demolition enumerated in the Conclusion of this essay, and in the essay's earlier version critiquing the NIST's Draft Report.
Playing the Missiles and Basement Bombs Straw Men
In the last paragraph, NIST employs the straw-man tactic used so extensively by the Popular Mechanics article. It reads:
NIST Quote :
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (p 146/196)
It may be true that NIST failed to find corroborating evidence of controlled demolition: perhaps its investigators were careful not to look at any of its 6,977 segments of video footage or 6,899 photographs capturing events after "collapse initiation." It may also be true (and is much more plausible) that NIST didn't find evidence of the missile strikes alleged by letsroll911.org, In Plane Site, and Loose Change. NIST employs the same strategy as these productions: pairing the controlled demolition hypothesis with the nonsensical idea that the crashing planes fired missiles into the Towers, in order to discredit the hypothesis. As with the Popular Mechanics piece before it, the overt apologists for the official story work hand-in-glove with sensational productions that attack the official story with phony evidence.
NIST's second use of the straw-man tactic in the paragraph is more subtle. It implies that controlled demolition would have destroyed the Towers in an order other than that observed -- from the bottom up instead of from the top down. This ignores the fact that controlled demolitions are controlled, and therefore demolition sequences can be effected in any order desired. In the case of the Twin Towers, the demolitions would have been designed so that the destruction could be blamed on the plane crashes and fires, and hence would have been initiated around the crash zones. (Even in that detail, they leave something to be desired, since there is evidence that the top of each tower was broken up before falling into the crash zone.)
NIST does not explicitly mention the basement bombs theory but falsely implies that all controlled demolition theories are synonymous with it, requiring the explosions to start low in the Towers. This suggests a reason that the basement bombs theories have been aggressively promoted in literature purporting to challenge the official story: It provides a convenient straw man that defenders of the official story such as NIST can falsely identify with all demolition hypotheses in order to discredit them.
DUH! Nothing happens without money. look at 911thruth: "911Truth.org continues its important work only through the generous donations of concerned individuals like you, and we appreciate every single penny!" or look at Open911.org: "Please Help us Match Mr. Walter's $850,00"
You are desperate if you think asking for money somehow discredits someone. What is your agenda that you would even try to make such a claim?
The full quote is: "We need to raise funds so we can raise our voices so all Americans can learn the truth: We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the U.S. government engineered it."
well, i donated a million to you, so you can offer a prize for anyone who disproves your theories.
just like 'our side' has such a reward.
good luck, and good thinking.
toodles.
newton, you have got to be kidding. "slower thermite reactions" and "softening up the core"!?!
First of all, it is the exterior columns that were bowing and in WTC 2 the bowing was seen 18 min after the plane's impact. East Face of WTC 2 - 9:21 AM So what you are arguing does not make sense at all. You think a "controlled explosion" was set in motion with a "slow thermite reaction" for 38 minutes and then the buildings fell?
Are you really this detached from reality? Why the hell are you trying so hard to push this crap of yours? 
And you guys get almost every fact wrong. Here is your hero, David Ray Griffin, who is ignorant of the fact that there were signs that the buildings' structures were failing well before they collapsed. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion"
"Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." - David Ray Griffin
Griffin is clearly extremely ignorant or a liar.
And Hoffman sees the problem that the bowing columns pose to the CT crowd, that is why he tries to dismiss them as optical illusions. OPTICAL ILLUSIONS caused by hot air. Again, another BS story from the CT crowd. No way in hell would hot air create optical illusions for multiple angles at different times that mimics a progression of bowing over many minutes. Time to deal with a theory that is based in reality. Hot air is not a perfect lens, it would not look like that even in a single photo.
And you didn't answer my question, since everyone needs money to accomplish their goals, even the misguided CT groups, why did you try to use money needs in an attempt to discredit me? What is your agenda?
Second Point
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
That photo of the bloke with the lance. Note the steel he is cutting has pieces on three mutually perpendicular axis all passing through the same point. Note also that in one direction there are twin beams running either side of the vertical. In effect there are eight legs radiating from one point. Where could this junction have come from?
The orientation of the I-beams would tend to confirm the assumption that the box section beam is in fact the vertical column as has already been suggested. That would account for two legs and leaves us with the horizontal beams running perpendicular to each other, a single beam and a pair of beams. The vertical column was not a perimeter column because this would leave at least one beam sticking out of the building, so it must be from the core. Was it on the corner, on the side, or inside the core?
I’ll do my best to place that piece for you with recollection of the 1990 documentary about the construction of WTC 1.
That section of interior box column is from the upper part of WTC 1. The below silhouette of the towers shows WTC on the right. Its core ran east west, we view the wide axis, from right to left; the first dark column is the interior box column, the vertical line of light increases in width as it goes up because the concrete core of WTC 1 is tapered with shear wall construction. Something not easy to see, but it is basically detectable.
The box column above has a single “I” beam from top left to bottom right that ran parallel to the face of the core. Lower is was very close to or against the core. Further up, because the column had to remain plumb, a set of beams ran back to the core face and connected to a beam that actually ran up the core providing steel to weld to horizontaly at each floor from the interior box column. That set probably runs up and to the right. I specifically remember one shot of a welder on scaffold between the interior box column and the core face making shims, explained with the narration, to create the tolerances specified so the core would act to resist torsion immediately, keeping the tower perfectly aligned as the steel overhead advanced.
Seventh point
Where is the concrete core? We know that there were access passages to the stairwells and lifts. We know there was horizontal bracing running through the core area. We know from the silhouette photograph that there was a passage through the core in two perpendicular directions. So that divides the core area into four areas.
WTC 2 had a totally different core. WTC 1 had been hard to rent because the perpendicular hallways every other floor gave poor access across the core. The tapering core was also added difficulty to construction of both steel and concrete.
In the Silhouette photo the tower on the left is WTC 2. It’s core runs north and south. Double lines of light run up it indicating 2 hallways running through the long axis. I remember in the documentary, near the end, WTC 1 was nearly finished and WTC 2 was seen almost halfway up. Narration explained the rental problem with WTC 1’s core and the revision in hallways. It also mentioned the term “supercore”. I had seen this term in use a couple of times on bb’s and people referring to WTC 2 when using it. In thinking carefully about that narration I remember that the structural design had been modified, giving improved access, and that WTC 2 had no taper as it was not simply steel reinforced shear wall construction but had that combined in a cellular/modular fashion with a third wall in the center (many holes for stairwells and thick concrete floors that were cast in horizontal overlap into the core wall. Hence in the silhouette of the WTC we see no single column or bar of light at the outside edge of the core near the top.
Fifth point - a question.
Were the crane supports incorporated into the finished structure? If so, is it these which we see in the “bundle of sticks with glowing ends photograph”?
The below image shows the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly inside the ring of interior box columns and beams.
It slid up and down the inside of the core to adapt to different work heights over the top floor. I remember the documentary talking about how the casting of the core went smoothly and continuously with the crane platform being used to erect steel up to 7 floors over the top of the finished, connected concrete core up to the 38th floor where it had to be completely disassembled and lowered to the ground whereupon the entire few floors below the first mechanical at the 42nd had to be formed by hand and steel erected in the old way, before cranes, which represented a major slowdown. Also Otis was installing the elevator motors and reels which represented greater speed as soon as it was working because they could take over moving small objects freeing the cranes for erection tasks after the 44th floor.
Eighth point
Someone asked about the plain ends on the large box columns. The join for these could be facilitated by a flange or sole plate and side brackets, which would mean that you would struggle to use them as guide rails for the lifts. It would be a bit of a bumpy ride. Alternatively they could be butt-welded, but that is a deep weld accessible from one side only so it would make them more difficult and very time consuming.
About a foot to the right of the joint with the Intersection of columns and beams. on the upper column face is a surface with a different texture. That is a ground surface from a deep fillet weld effected in place then ground smooth. The narration mentioned this weld more than once. Each column was assembled this way from the ground up.
Those plain ends, I call them smooth, square cut, almost looking sheared, those are astounding, really. I can only see it happening one way, and I know that because of the 100% deep fillet welds every 50 feet or so, the interior box columns were basically full length solid columns.
See, this is what I was talking about. I have yet to see a CT even understand what the real motives were!
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
And what was the motives of the two suicide pilots that crashed the two planes into the World Trade Center?
A German friend of Mohammed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 1 ) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
Marwan al-Shehhi (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 2 ) answered, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed.
And the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was angry with the United States "not from his experience there as a student, but rather his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel"
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."
And look how the real motives get suppressed:
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public Discourse Project" Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly trys to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.
Stop with the insinuations frater plecticus, you really should be ashamed of yourself.
I have made 7 posts, you can read them and see what I mean:
"It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks." "Again, another BS story from the CT crowd."
And you guys get almost every fact wrong. Here is your hero, David Ray Griffin, who is ignorant of the fact that there were signs that the buildings' structures were failing well before they collapsed. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion"
"Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." - David Ray Griffin
Is this why you are on this forum? To throw ugly insinuations against people that dare point out that the prime motive for the 9/11 attack was U.S. support of Israel?
"well it is a trick, we always use it." - Shulamit Aloni responding to Amy Goodman about the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic".
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
Yeah. It was all dirt. No hallways.
www.misterpoll.com/3350105192.html
G
Well, I took the poll, then viewed the results. 24% of the respondents felt that WTC7 did not fall due to controlled demolition. I consider it a no-brainer that it did, so I wonder who is taking this poll? People that know about the "whopping" .5 second disparity in collapse time between the fall of the building and free fall time in a vacuum, or not?
There is a definite segment of America that votes/argues against logic for an unspoken agenda that might be termed "shared".
The curtain falls on the world center stage.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 20 2006, 05:47 AM)
QUOTE
Any website that claims discussion forums like this one "undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel" are heavily suspect.
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Well, I'm sorry... but once again, the above 'distraction' of attempting to claim that there is a 'real conspiracy' that 'we' 'CTers' are hindering by discussing the explosives theory... seems SOOOOO reminiscent of the philosophy of the abberant Schneibster theory.
It is interesting to note that there has been an increase in Yahoo Geocities sites which attempt to debunk "conspiracy theories" related to 9/11 and specifically the most damaging --- that the towers and # 7 were examples of controlled demolitions.
Leading the way in this assault on the truth is NIST who has laid out a mantra (in it's Final Report) meant for repetition by sites such as the above.
The joining/association of these 'debunking' sites in a common effort of repeating the fairy tale suggests a concerted effort by a group of 'individuals' who promote Bushs agenda to attempt to associate 'CTers' with 'terrorists' and 'fifth columnists'.
To the common man on the street (who has not researched all the unanswered questions in detail), these 'debunking sites' might sound 'intelligent', believable, and as though the statements made by them (faux-evidence presented) cannot be refuted by engineering and science.
The following is taken from a response to the NIST Final Report written by Jim Hoffman.
Those who have already researched the unaswered questions in depth will not need to read the following, however, I would seriously challenge any promoters of the false NIST fairy tale to read the following and see if they can refute the observations contained within through common sense and scientific reasoning.
One thing that I can't agree MORE with regarding Hoffmans observations in my readings of the NIST reports, is the feeling I get from many sections that NIST has cleverly left open 'fall-back' positions, so that in the event that the truth is exposed, their wording is such that they will be able to claim that they did not have any Direct Participation in a cover-up, and that their opinions were 'just innocent misreadings of the actual evidence'.
I agree with Hoffmans 'take' reproduced below...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Any website that claims discussion forums like this one "undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel" are heavily suspect. |
WHY? Why would it be "heavily suspect"? People pushing a theory that is untrue and that distracts from the reality that we were attacked because of specific foreign policies do indeed undermine serious efforts to get foreign policies addressed. How could you not see that?
It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. SEE: Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT is that Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Well, I'm sorry... but once again, the above 'distraction' of attempting to claim that there is a 'real conspiracy' that 'we' 'CTers' are hindering by discussing the explosives theory... seems SOOOOO reminiscent of the philosophy of the abberant Schneibster theory.
It is interesting to note that there has been an increase in Yahoo Geocities sites which attempt to debunk "conspiracy theories" related to 9/11 and specifically the most damaging --- that the towers and # 7 were examples of controlled demolitions.
Leading the way in this assault on the truth is NIST who has laid out a mantra (in it's Final Report) meant for repetition by sites such as the above.
The joining/association of these 'debunking' sites in a common effort of repeating the fairy tale suggests a concerted effort by a group of 'individuals' who promote Bushs agenda to attempt to associate 'CTers' with 'terrorists' and 'fifth columnists'.
To the common man on the street (who has not researched all the unanswered questions in detail), these 'debunking sites' might sound 'intelligent', believable, and as though the statements made by them (faux-evidence presented) cannot be refuted by engineering and science.
The following is taken from a response to the NIST Final Report written by Jim Hoffman.
Those who have already researched the unaswered questions in depth will not need to read the following, however, I would seriously challenge any promoters of the false NIST fairy tale to read the following and see if they can refute the observations contained within through common sense and scientific reasoning.
One thing that I can't agree MORE with regarding Hoffmans observations in my readings of the NIST reports, is the feeling I get from many sections that NIST has cleverly left open 'fall-back' positions, so that in the event that the truth is exposed, their wording is such that they will be able to claim that they did not have any Direct Participation in a cover-up, and that their opinions were 'just innocent misreadings of the actual evidence'.
I agree with Hoffmans 'take' reproduced below...
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
The main difference between the Draft and the Final Report is the addition in the Final Report of Section 6.14.4, "Events Following Collapse Initiation," which consists of five paragraphs filling half a page. This section apparently constitutes the "little analysis of the structural behavior" following "collapse initiation" mentioned in the Executive Summary. Section 6.14.4 promotes the pile-driver theory with a circular argument; cherry-picks, misrepresents, and dismisses with faulty arguments evidence of controlled demolition; and attacks the demolition hypothesis by melding it with hoaxes.
The Pile-Driver Theory, Again
The first two paragraphs of the new section reiterate the pile-driver theory using similar language and vagueness to many earlier tellings of the theory.
NIST Quote :
Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structures below to absorb that through energy of deformation. (p 146/196)
Note the observations that the structure below was "not able to arrest this initial movement," and "offered minimal resistance."
The Report implies that this was because the force of the falling mass destroyed the intact structure below it. It does not actually state this, however, or rule out the shattering of structure by explosives as the reason for the minimal resistance. Instead, it states that the energy of the falling mass exceeded the "energy of deformation" that the intact structures could supply.
That may or may not be true, but the intact structure could have arrested the downward movement of the top without deforming by simply transmitting the impact forces to the ground.
These nuances of meaning will not be noticed by the casual reader but could provide the investigators with an out in the event that they are charged with covering up the crime of the intentional controlled demolition of the Towers. Statements that are grossly misleading but legally defensible because they are technically true are one of the hallmarks of a sophisticated cover-up.
Perfunctory Explanations of Two Features
The next two paragraphs in the new section are the only places in the Report where NIST addresses critiques that the Draft Report avoided considering evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. The third paragraph addresses the rapid rate of fall. It reads:
NIST Quote :
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)
This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.
The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
Like virtually every other endorsement of the pile-driver theory, NIST's is entirely free of quantitative detail. Why does NIST not even attempt to quantify the amount of energy that the top of each Tower would accumulate after a free-fall of one story -- an easy calculation? Perhaps because it would draw attention to the many problems of the pile-driver theory, including:
- No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.
- Photographs and videos show the top of both Towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, disproving the existence of the supposed pile drivers.
- Most of the rubble appears to fall outside of the Towers' footprint, thus being unavailable to crush the intact structure.
- Rubble falls through the air outside of the Towers' profiles at about the same speed it falls through their profiles, showing that the structures below provided little to no more resistance than air.
The fourth paragraph addresses the jets of dust, often called "squibs." It reads:
NIST Quote :
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. (p 146/196)
NIST conceals the nature of the energetic ejections by describing them only as material "forc[ed] ... out the windows". It does not mention any resources for examining this evidence, such as these video frames showing dust ejections from the North Tower.
When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
- No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
- The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
- The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
- The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.
NIST thus attempts to explain away only two of the six features of controlled demolition enumerated in the Conclusion of this essay, and in the essay's earlier version critiquing the NIST's Draft Report.
Playing the Missiles and Basement Bombs Straw Men
In the last paragraph, NIST employs the straw-man tactic used so extensively by the Popular Mechanics article. It reads:
NIST Quote :
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (p 146/196)
It may be true that NIST failed to find corroborating evidence of controlled demolition: perhaps its investigators were careful not to look at any of its 6,977 segments of video footage or 6,899 photographs capturing events after "collapse initiation." It may also be true (and is much more plausible) that NIST didn't find evidence of the missile strikes alleged by letsroll911.org, In Plane Site, and Loose Change. NIST employs the same strategy as these productions: pairing the controlled demolition hypothesis with the nonsensical idea that the crashing planes fired missiles into the Towers, in order to discredit the hypothesis. As with the Popular Mechanics piece before it, the overt apologists for the official story work hand-in-glove with sensational productions that attack the official story with phony evidence.
NIST's second use of the straw-man tactic in the paragraph is more subtle. It implies that controlled demolition would have destroyed the Towers in an order other than that observed -- from the bottom up instead of from the top down. This ignores the fact that controlled demolitions are controlled, and therefore demolition sequences can be effected in any order desired. In the case of the Twin Towers, the demolitions would have been designed so that the destruction could be blamed on the plane crashes and fires, and hence would have been initiated around the crash zones. (Even in that detail, they leave something to be desired, since there is evidence that the top of each tower was broken up before falling into the crash zone.)
NIST does not explicitly mention the basement bombs theory but falsely implies that all controlled demolition theories are synonymous with it, requiring the explosions to start low in the Towers. This suggests a reason that the basement bombs theories have been aggressively promoted in literature purporting to challenge the official story: It provides a convenient straw man that defenders of the official story such as NIST can falsely identify with all demolition hypotheses in order to discredit them.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 20 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE
Your motives become clear when you state "we need to raise funds"
DUH! Nothing happens without money. look at 911thruth: "911Truth.org continues its important work only through the generous donations of concerned individuals like you, and we appreciate every single penny!" or look at Open911.org: "Please Help us Match Mr. Walter's $850,00"
You are desperate if you think asking for money somehow discredits someone. What is your agenda that you would even try to make such a claim?
The full quote is: "We need to raise funds so we can raise our voices so all Americans can learn the truth: We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the U.S. government engineered it."
well, i donated a million to you, so you can offer a prize for anyone who disproves your theories.
just like 'our side' has such a reward.
good luck, and good thinking.
toodles.
Zoktoberfest, w/regards to your above observations...
The truss floors were installed as the buildings went up. There are far too many existant photos of those stages of the construction to believe that the floors were not installed until after the perimeter walls, hat truss and core were finished (if I have understood your propositions above correctly).
The thing I find most unusual about the photos is the clear band which runs down through the center of the core. This is not 'right' - it is this feature which leads me to suspect that there is something fishy about those photos. I would like to find the original source of those photos, but apparently these are another of the mysterious never before seen items used in the algoxy site.
Co-incidentally the photos of mysterious origins tend to support some of the algoxy nonsense (in the alleged layout of the hallways / stairwells), however this theory is refuted by too many existing witness reports who give reports that support that the NIST layout of stairwells is correct. The idea that there was an opening which ran right through the building from one side to another within the core does not make sense from an engineering standpoint.
The truss floors were installed as the buildings went up. There are far too many existant photos of those stages of the construction to believe that the floors were not installed until after the perimeter walls, hat truss and core were finished (if I have understood your propositions above correctly).
The thing I find most unusual about the photos is the clear band which runs down through the center of the core. This is not 'right' - it is this feature which leads me to suspect that there is something fishy about those photos. I would like to find the original source of those photos, but apparently these are another of the mysterious never before seen items used in the algoxy site.
Co-incidentally the photos of mysterious origins tend to support some of the algoxy nonsense (in the alleged layout of the hallways / stairwells), however this theory is refuted by too many existing witness reports who give reports that support that the NIST layout of stairwells is correct. The idea that there was an opening which ran right through the building from one side to another within the core does not make sense from an engineering standpoint.
QUOTE
"slower thermite reactions could cause the gradual weaking, softening up the core for the big whack. there is no reason that the bowing was not a part of the controlled demolition." - newton
newton, you have got to be kidding. "slower thermite reactions" and "softening up the core"!?!
First of all, it is the exterior columns that were bowing and in WTC 2 the bowing was seen 18 min after the plane's impact. East Face of WTC 2 - 9:21 AM So what you are arguing does not make sense at all. You think a "controlled explosion" was set in motion with a "slow thermite reaction" for 38 minutes and then the buildings fell?
Are you really this detached from reality? Why the hell are you trying so hard to push this crap of yours? And you guys get almost every fact wrong. Here is your hero, David Ray Griffin, who is ignorant of the fact that there were signs that the buildings' structures were failing well before they collapsed. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion"
"Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." - David Ray Griffin
Griffin is clearly extremely ignorant or a liar.
And Hoffman sees the problem that the bowing columns pose to the CT crowd, that is why he tries to dismiss them as optical illusions. OPTICAL ILLUSIONS caused by hot air. Again, another BS story from the CT crowd. No way in hell would hot air create optical illusions for multiple angles at different times that mimics a progression of bowing over many minutes. Time to deal with a theory that is based in reality. Hot air is not a perfect lens, it would not look like that even in a single photo.
And you didn't answer my question, since everyone needs money to accomplish their goals, even the misguided CT groups, why did you try to use money needs in an attempt to discredit me? What is your agenda?
WTC 7 was severely damaged and was on fire for hours
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed and contrary to the claims of 9/11 conspiracy people, it did not collapse into its footprint like a controlled explosion.
(See the diagram) Instead, as the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. (See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC 6).
Eyewitness accounts from firemen such as Captain Chris Boyle and Deputy Chief Peter Hayden and photographic evidence back this up. It is the south side of WTC 7 that was damaged and it is likely that the fires (see figures 5-16 and 5-17) started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, the fires in WTC 7 started at approximately the same time as the collapse of WTC 1 and it is the fires that are primarily the reason the WTC 7 building collapsed. Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of the WTC 7
WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours
Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of WTC 7 but it is the south side of the building that was damaged by the debris from WTC 1 and it is the west side of the building where the smoke was pouring out of. (see figures 5-16 and 5-17)
"at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed and contrary to the claims of 9/11 conspiracy people, it did not collapse into its footprint like a controlled explosion.
(See the diagram) Instead, as the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. (See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC 6).Eyewitness accounts from firemen such as Captain Chris Boyle and Deputy Chief Peter Hayden and photographic evidence back this up. It is the south side of WTC 7 that was damaged and it is likely that the fires (see figures 5-16 and 5-17) started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, the fires in WTC 7 started at approximately the same time as the collapse of WTC 1 and it is the fires that are primarily the reason the WTC 7 building collapsed. Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of the WTC 7
WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours
Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of WTC 7 but it is the south side of the building that was damaged by the debris from WTC 1 and it is the west side of the building where the smoke was pouring out of. (see figures 5-16 and 5-17)
"at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years
Foxx,
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 20 2006, 07:30 AM)
WTC 7 was severely damaged and was on fire for hours
The damage to WTC7 that you cite in no way explains the complete lack of resistance witnessed in its rush to the ground.
The damage to WTC7 that you cite in no way explains the complete lack of resistance witnessed in its rush to the ground.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 20 2006, 07:43 AM)
Foxx,
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
ever feel like your work was being slowed down by gnats buzzing in your ears? lol!
yeah. the towers, on a macro scale, are like three stacked boxes. the mechanical floors had to have a much greater weight bearing ability than the regular floors.
this added strength, and the fact that these floors are a barrier to magic jet fuel, are certainly worth considering beyond the hand wave conclusion.
there is no visible stutter at all in the collapse.
p.s. that libel noriot thing was too kind. cheers.
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
ever feel like your work was being slowed down by gnats buzzing in your ears? lol!
yeah. the towers, on a macro scale, are like three stacked boxes. the mechanical floors had to have a much greater weight bearing ability than the regular floors.
this added strength, and the fact that these floors are a barrier to magic jet fuel, are certainly worth considering beyond the hand wave conclusion.
there is no visible stutter at all in the collapse.
p.s. that libel noriot thing was too kind. cheers.
QUOTE (gordon wrote+)
Second Point
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004a.html
That photo of the bloke with the lance. Note the steel he is cutting has pieces on three mutually perpendicular axis all passing through the same point. Note also that in one direction there are twin beams running either side of the vertical. In effect there are eight legs radiating from one point. Where could this junction have come from?
The orientation of the I-beams would tend to confirm the assumption that the box section beam is in fact the vertical column as has already been suggested. That would account for two legs and leaves us with the horizontal beams running perpendicular to each other, a single beam and a pair of beams. The vertical column was not a perimeter column because this would leave at least one beam sticking out of the building, so it must be from the core. Was it on the corner, on the side, or inside the core?
I’ll do my best to place that piece for you with recollection of the 1990 documentary about the construction of WTC 1.
That section of interior box column is from the upper part of WTC 1. The below silhouette of the towers shows WTC on the right. Its core ran east west, we view the wide axis, from right to left; the first dark column is the interior box column, the vertical line of light increases in width as it goes up because the concrete core of WTC 1 is tapered with shear wall construction. Something not easy to see, but it is basically detectable.
The box column above has a single “I” beam from top left to bottom right that ran parallel to the face of the core. Lower is was very close to or against the core. Further up, because the column had to remain plumb, a set of beams ran back to the core face and connected to a beam that actually ran up the core providing steel to weld to horizontaly at each floor from the interior box column. That set probably runs up and to the right. I specifically remember one shot of a welder on scaffold between the interior box column and the core face making shims, explained with the narration, to create the tolerances specified so the core would act to resist torsion immediately, keeping the tower perfectly aligned as the steel overhead advanced.
QUOTE (gordon wrote+)
Seventh point
Where is the concrete core? We know that there were access passages to the stairwells and lifts. We know there was horizontal bracing running through the core area. We know from the silhouette photograph that there was a passage through the core in two perpendicular directions. So that divides the core area into four areas.
WTC 2 had a totally different core. WTC 1 had been hard to rent because the perpendicular hallways every other floor gave poor access across the core. The tapering core was also added difficulty to construction of both steel and concrete.
In the Silhouette photo the tower on the left is WTC 2. It’s core runs north and south. Double lines of light run up it indicating 2 hallways running through the long axis. I remember in the documentary, near the end, WTC 1 was nearly finished and WTC 2 was seen almost halfway up. Narration explained the rental problem with WTC 1’s core and the revision in hallways. It also mentioned the term “supercore”. I had seen this term in use a couple of times on bb’s and people referring to WTC 2 when using it. In thinking carefully about that narration I remember that the structural design had been modified, giving improved access, and that WTC 2 had no taper as it was not simply steel reinforced shear wall construction but had that combined in a cellular/modular fashion with a third wall in the center (many holes for stairwells and thick concrete floors that were cast in horizontal overlap into the core wall. Hence in the silhouette of the WTC we see no single column or bar of light at the outside edge of the core near the top.
QUOTE (gordon wrote+)
Fifth point - a question.
Were the crane supports incorporated into the finished structure? If so, is it these which we see in the “bundle of sticks with glowing ends photograph”?
The below image shows the crane platform, the heavily trussed assembly inside the ring of interior box columns and beams.
It slid up and down the inside of the core to adapt to different work heights over the top floor. I remember the documentary talking about how the casting of the core went smoothly and continuously with the crane platform being used to erect steel up to 7 floors over the top of the finished, connected concrete core up to the 38th floor where it had to be completely disassembled and lowered to the ground whereupon the entire few floors below the first mechanical at the 42nd had to be formed by hand and steel erected in the old way, before cranes, which represented a major slowdown. Also Otis was installing the elevator motors and reels which represented greater speed as soon as it was working because they could take over moving small objects freeing the cranes for erection tasks after the 44th floor.
QUOTE (gordon wrote+)
Eighth point
Someone asked about the plain ends on the large box columns. The join for these could be facilitated by a flange or sole plate and side brackets, which would mean that you would struggle to use them as guide rails for the lifts. It would be a bit of a bumpy ride. Alternatively they could be butt-welded, but that is a deep weld accessible from one side only so it would make them more difficult and very time consuming.
About a foot to the right of the joint with the Intersection of columns and beams. on the upper column face is a surface with a different texture. That is a ground surface from a deep fillet weld effected in place then ground smooth. The narration mentioned this weld more than once. Each column was assembled this way from the ground up.
Those plain ends, I call them smooth, square cut, almost looking sheared, those are astounding, really. I can only see it happening one way, and I know that because of the 100% deep fillet welds every 50 feet or so, the interior box columns were basically full length solid columns.
Raytheon Awarded Contract For Block IV Tomahawk Missile
by Staff Writers
Tucson AZ (SPX) Mar 16, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a $346 million contract increment to supply the U.S. and United Kingdom navies with the Block IV (Tactical) Tomahawk cruise missile. This is the third installment on a multi-year contract whose value could reach $1.6 billion.
The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473 missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U. K. Manufacturing work will be done at Raytheon's Missile Systems businesses in Tucson, Ariz., and Camden, Ark., and is expected to be completed in 2009. Raytheon began delivering Block IV missiles to the U.S. Navy in mid-2004.
Block IV Tomahawk is the next generation of the Tomahawk family of cruise missiles, incorporating innovative technologies to provide new, flexible operational capability while dramatically reducing acquisition, operations and lifecycle support costs.
Article: http://tinyurl.com/noo5c
Raytheon Awarded Contract For Submarine Satellite Comms Solution
by Staff Writers
Mckinney TX (SPX) Mar 02, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a $35.9 million U.S. Navy contract to deliver 15 Submarine High Data Rate (Sub HDR) multi-band satellite communication systems (SATCOM). Sub HDR gives submarines high data rate, multi-band SATCOM capability. Raytheon has delivered more than 71 Sub HDR systems to the Navy during the last six years under previous contracts totaling more than $160 million.
"This solution provides high bandwidth communications for submarines at periscope depth," said Jerry Powlen, vice president, Integrated Communications Systems. "Sub HDR fills an essential capability gap by enabling underwater forces to be full FORCEnet participants in coordinated fleet battle group and joint task force network centric operations."
Sub HDR technology, which was developed by Raytheon in the 1990s, links submarines to the Global Broadcast service, the Milstar satellite constellation and the Defense Satellite Communication System.
Article: http://tinyurl.com/syw6l
Lockheed Martin Marine Corps High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
by Staff Writers
Dallas TX (SPX) Mar 14, 2006
Lockheed Martin received a $51.6 million contract modification to provide 18 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract modification was an option in the U.S. Army's HIMARS full-rate production contract award to Lockheed Martin in December 2005.
Work on the contract will be performed at the company's facilities in Camden, AR, and Grand Prairie, TX, and is scheduled for completion by the first quarter of 2008.
"These awards exemplify the maturity of these technologies and the immediate need for these systems in the Global War on Terrorism," said Rick Edwards, vice president – Tactical Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "HIMARS and precision munitions such as GMLRS are much needed systems for the future combat forces."
Article: http://tinyurl.com/rdpk3
by Staff Writers
Tucson AZ (SPX) Mar 16, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a $346 million contract increment to supply the U.S. and United Kingdom navies with the Block IV (Tactical) Tomahawk cruise missile. This is the third installment on a multi-year contract whose value could reach $1.6 billion.
The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473 missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U. K. Manufacturing work will be done at Raytheon's Missile Systems businesses in Tucson, Ariz., and Camden, Ark., and is expected to be completed in 2009. Raytheon began delivering Block IV missiles to the U.S. Navy in mid-2004.
Block IV Tomahawk is the next generation of the Tomahawk family of cruise missiles, incorporating innovative technologies to provide new, flexible operational capability while dramatically reducing acquisition, operations and lifecycle support costs.
Article: http://tinyurl.com/noo5c
Raytheon Awarded Contract For Submarine Satellite Comms Solution
by Staff Writers
Mckinney TX (SPX) Mar 02, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a $35.9 million U.S. Navy contract to deliver 15 Submarine High Data Rate (Sub HDR) multi-band satellite communication systems (SATCOM). Sub HDR gives submarines high data rate, multi-band SATCOM capability. Raytheon has delivered more than 71 Sub HDR systems to the Navy during the last six years under previous contracts totaling more than $160 million.
"This solution provides high bandwidth communications for submarines at periscope depth," said Jerry Powlen, vice president, Integrated Communications Systems. "Sub HDR fills an essential capability gap by enabling underwater forces to be full FORCEnet participants in coordinated fleet battle group and joint task force network centric operations."
Sub HDR technology, which was developed by Raytheon in the 1990s, links submarines to the Global Broadcast service, the Milstar satellite constellation and the Defense Satellite Communication System.
Article: http://tinyurl.com/syw6l
Lockheed Martin Marine Corps High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
by Staff Writers
Dallas TX (SPX) Mar 14, 2006
Lockheed Martin received a $51.6 million contract modification to provide 18 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract modification was an option in the U.S. Army's HIMARS full-rate production contract award to Lockheed Martin in December 2005.
Work on the contract will be performed at the company's facilities in Camden, AR, and Grand Prairie, TX, and is scheduled for completion by the first quarter of 2008.
"These awards exemplify the maturity of these technologies and the immediate need for these systems in the Global War on Terrorism," said Rick Edwards, vice president – Tactical Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "HIMARS and precision munitions such as GMLRS are much needed systems for the future combat forces."
Article: http://tinyurl.com/rdpk3
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 20 2006, 07:43 AM)
Foxx,
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
Your point is well taken.
I have one concern, before I let this go: that a disproportionate number of on-site photos were taken, when the workers were at the (solid) level of the (M)echanical floors. How would you know, that you aren't looking at work detail from the lower M level and then from the higher M level, over and over again, just from different perspectives and assuming your seeing work at all levels?
I agree, that it would make perfect sense to build, level by level, as you go. The core had to go up first, however, at the higher levels to facilitate the boom actions of the crane. How did they keep raising the crane to a higher level? They must have assembled and disassembled it, as they went up.
Hey, if the photos are of suspicious origins then their intended "purpose" might be having unintended consequences when viewers like zoktoberfest weigh in on them.
Thanks for your perspective. I still think the photos are optically anomalous and that the configuration and influence of the mechanical levels, need to be better understood.
QUOTE
London to SF
Posted: Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM
.and certainly do not reply with anything that resembles... "Arab terrorists did it coz they hate America, and what it stands for" lol
Posted: Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM
.and certainly do not reply with anything that resembles... "Arab terrorists did it coz they hate America, and what it stands for" lol
See, this is what I was talking about. I have yet to see a CT even understand what the real motives were!
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
And what was the motives of the two suicide pilots that crashed the two planes into the World Trade Center?
A German friend of Mohammed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 1 ) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
Marwan al-Shehhi (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 2 ) answered, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed.
And the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was angry with the United States "not from his experience there as a student, but rather his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel"
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."
And look how the real motives get suppressed:
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public Discourse Project" Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly trys to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.
Representativepress, the only link Israel has with the 9-11 plot is intelligence gathering during pre production.
You are assuming that they (the government) lied about the reasons for 9-11 but told the truth about the events of 9-11.
Maybe you should read the first 40 pages of this thread, to see how tenuous the information is that points to arab involvement in 9-11.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
You are assuming that they (the government) lied about the reasons for 9-11 but told the truth about the events of 9-11.
Maybe you should read the first 40 pages of this thread, to see how tenuous the information is that points to arab involvement in 9-11.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
GoShalom.com for Jewish Dating, Jewish Singles, Jewish Personals
<br>
We want you to be happy, and find the person you so deserve. As the basic law of physics would dictate. Love is Love and Science is Science. Single Jews, Jewish Personals , Jewish dating all derive at the point of http://www.goshalom.com , we want every single Jewish member of society to be happy. remember TJ - Think Jewish
<br>
We want you to be happy, and find the person you so deserve. As the basic law of physics would dictate. Love is Love and Science is Science. Single Jews, Jewish Personals , Jewish dating all derive at the point of http://www.goshalom.com , we want every single Jewish member of society to be happy. remember TJ - Think Jewish
frater plecticus, this is how you guys undermine the efforts to deal with the terrorist threat.
I have been angry for years BEFORE 9/11 because I saw how the motives were not being discussed. The 1993 WTC bombing for example, the motive of U.S. support of Israel was suppressed for the most part by the MSM.
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
And you guys still quote that fool Griffin. He says the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. THAT IS WRONG. READ> the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground. AND Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001
Griffin says they fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell AND AGAIN he is wrong. They did not fall "into their own footprint"
For God sakes why do you quote a man that gets so many basic facts wrong? LOOK> As the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC.
I have been angry for years BEFORE 9/11 because I saw how the motives were not being discussed. The 1993 WTC bombing for example, the motive of U.S. support of Israel was suppressed for the most part by the MSM.
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
And you guys still quote that fool Griffin. He says the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. THAT IS WRONG. READ> the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground. AND Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001
Griffin says they fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell AND AGAIN he is wrong. They did not fall "into their own footprint"
For God sakes why do you quote a man that gets so many basic facts wrong? LOOK> As the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC.
Representativepress, who/what do you mean by "you guys ?"
[QUOTE=representativepress,Mar 20 2006, 02:52 AM][QUOTE]London to SF
Posted: Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM
.and certainly do not reply with anything that resembles... "Arab terrorists did it coz they hate America, and what it stands for" lol[/QUOTE]
See, this is what I was talking about. I have yet to see a CT even understand what the real motives were!
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
[b]
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
Posted: Dec 23 2005, 08:21 PM
A tale for our time.
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he eventually points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with my poison or you're with their venom".
zoktoberfest
Before you decide that all CTers have no Geopolitical perspective, you should read the entire thread.
No one discounts the sociological train wreck, implied in the returning of the Jews to their promised land, after seemingly endless centuries of stateless exile. Especially, since that region had been ethnically Arab for almost as long. Is it ironic that the U.S. thirst for oil increased dramatically just after WW2. Was this the opening move, in the slow evolution of the New World Order?
Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews and ultimately, ushered in the Jewish state in the process. Americans, before Pearl Harbor, seemed disinterested in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated against them. The Japanese had to get us motivated. Well into the the final solution, we finally get involved and in our new found empathy, create a Jewish state for those not yet exterminated. Aren't we wonderful.
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
Posted: Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM
.and certainly do not reply with anything that resembles... "Arab terrorists did it coz they hate America, and what it stands for" lol[/QUOTE]
See, this is what I was talking about. I have yet to see a CT even understand what the real motives were!
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
[b]
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
Posted: Dec 23 2005, 08:21 PM
A tale for our time.
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he eventually points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with my poison or you're with their venom".
zoktoberfest
Before you decide that all CTers have no Geopolitical perspective, you should read the entire thread.
No one discounts the sociological train wreck, implied in the returning of the Jews to their promised land, after seemingly endless centuries of stateless exile. Especially, since that region had been ethnically Arab for almost as long. Is it ironic that the U.S. thirst for oil increased dramatically just after WW2. Was this the opening move, in the slow evolution of the New World Order?
Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews and ultimately, ushered in the Jewish state in the process. Americans, before Pearl Harbor, seemed disinterested in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated against them. The Japanese had to get us motivated. Well into the the final solution, we finally get involved and in our new found empathy, create a Jewish state for those not yet exterminated. Aren't we wonderful.
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
Here's a pic of the staircase effect on the perimeter wall. You can see the stepped line indicating where the splices were staggered by one floor (groups of three columns per tree). The staggering didn't help to stop failure along the splices in this case. The columns themselves are undeformed and the splices are broken. The failure mechanism in this example obviously wasn't plastic deformation and/or fracture of the columns themselves.
representativepress, check your PM...
If the pop bottle on that box column is about 3 inches diameter, then the width of the box is about 41 inches. That's a large column.
There's a lip on the bottom of the bottom column. Note the chunk of concrete debris on it. If that column had been cut from the debris, that lip wouldn't be there.
That lip gives the impressions that the column was put in place and then a piece of fairly thin metal was placed over the seem between the two columns and welded. I'd hate to think that they relied on something that flimsy to splice box columns that large. Maybe the lip was used for alignment and and the seem on the opposite side was welded.
One of the other pics that someone posted here shows a weld at the seem of two box columns smaller than the ones showed below.
There's a lip on the bottom of the bottom column. Note the chunk of concrete debris on it. If that column had been cut from the debris, that lip wouldn't be there.
That lip gives the impressions that the column was put in place and then a piece of fairly thin metal was placed over the seem between the two columns and welded. I'd hate to think that they relied on something that flimsy to splice box columns that large. Maybe the lip was used for alignment and and the seem on the opposite side was welded.
One of the other pics that someone posted here shows a weld at the seem of two box columns smaller than the ones showed below.
The top part of the bottom box column looks like the outside edge chamfered. Maybe there was a weld on that side. If there was, it wasn't a through-weld.
If gypsum board was used to insulate the interior columns and no fire proofing was placed on the metal itself, that would have been a disaster. The metal would have been totally unprotected after the gypsum got jolted off by the aircraft impacts.
If gypsum board was used to insulate the interior columns and no fire proofing was placed on the metal itself, that would have been a disaster. The metal would have been totally unprotected after the gypsum got jolted off by the aircraft impacts.
The perimeter columns were insulated on all four sides. Three had one type of material and the side facing the inside of the building had another type. I don't remember the materials offhand.
This pic shows what looks like thin plates that connected the spandels where they were butted together. There's a line of what looks like closely spaces bolt holes. The failure looks like it occurred by the material between the holes fracturing. The holes were so closely spaced that it was easy for the metal between the holes to fracture. You would think that they would have staggered the bolt holes and not placed them so close together. It looks like a piece of perforated paper that was torn apart. The connections held up well enough for some plastic deformation to occur in the spandrels, however.
The strength of these connections and column splices could have had some effect on the debris field. If these connections had been more robust, perhaps the collateral damage wouldn't have been as severe, as more pieces of the building might have stayed together as opposed to flying about.
The strength of these connections and column splices could have had some effect on the debris field. If these connections had been more robust, perhaps the collateral damage wouldn't have been as severe, as more pieces of the building might have stayed together as opposed to flying about.
QUOTE
Representativepress, who/what do you mean by "you guys ?"
Stop with the insinuations frater plecticus, you really should be ashamed of yourself.
I have made 7 posts, you can read them and see what I mean:
"It seems to me that many of the CT people are ignorant about the motives for the 9/11 attacks." "Again, another BS story from the CT crowd."
And you guys get almost every fact wrong. Here is your hero, David Ray Griffin, who is ignorant of the fact that there were signs that the buildings' structures were failing well before they collapsed. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion"
"Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse." - David Ray Griffin
Is this why you are on this forum? To throw ugly insinuations against people that dare point out that the prime motive for the 9/11 attack was U.S. support of Israel?
"well it is a trick, we always use it." - Shulamit Aloni responding to Amy Goodman about the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic".
The pic I posted earlier regarding bolt failure. Forgot to mention that all three of these remaining bolts failed at the threads. That's not unusual. The threads act as stress concentrators. When the bolt is bent, there is a tensile stress created on one side of the bolt. That stress gets amplified by the sharp geometry of the thread and can act as a crack initiation point. Once the crack starts at a thread, it can propagate across the entire bolt.
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 20 2006, 07:48 PM)
See, this is what I was talking about. I have yet to see a CT even understand what the real motives were!
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
[b]
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
Posted: Dec 23 2005, 08:21 PM
A tale for our time.
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he eventually points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with my poison or you're with their venom".
zoktoberfest
Before you decide that all CTers have no Geopolitical perspective, you should read the entire thread.
No one discounts the sociological train wreck, implied in the returning of the Jews to their promised land, after seemingly endless centuries of stateless exile. Especially, since that region had been ethnically Arab for almost as long. Is it ironic that the U.S. thirst for oil increased dramatically just after WW2. Was this the opening move, in the slow evolution of the New World Order?
Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews and ultimately, ushered in the Jewish state in the process. Americans, before Pearl Harbor, seemed disinterested in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated against them. The Japanese had to get us motivated. Well into the the final solution, we finally get involved and in our new found empathy, create a Jewish state for those not yet exterminated. Aren't we wonderful.
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
Understanding several past times well, I'm quite certain of it. It was a ceremony of fear induction on a mass & designed to be so.
Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Looks like the CT crowd has done such a extremely poor job of research and reasoning that they think the "official" reason is "hating our freeoms" THAT IS THE POLITICAL LIE (the false reason) fed to the public in order to protect the specific foreign policies from being reviewed, it is not the actual reason.
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
[b]
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
Posted: Dec 23 2005, 08:21 PM
A tale for our time.
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he eventually points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with my poison or you're with their venom".
zoktoberfest
Before you decide that all CTers have no Geopolitical perspective, you should read the entire thread.
No one discounts the sociological train wreck, implied in the returning of the Jews to their promised land, after seemingly endless centuries of stateless exile. Especially, since that region had been ethnically Arab for almost as long. Is it ironic that the U.S. thirst for oil increased dramatically just after WW2. Was this the opening move, in the slow evolution of the New World Order?
Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews and ultimately, ushered in the Jewish state in the process. Americans, before Pearl Harbor, seemed disinterested in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated against them. The Japanese had to get us motivated. Well into the the final solution, we finally get involved and in our new found empathy, create a Jewish state for those not yet exterminated. Aren't we wonderful.
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
QUOTE
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
Understanding several past times well, I'm quite certain of it. It was a ceremony of fear induction on a mass & designed to be so.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 20 2006, 07:48 PM)
I sometimes think that the WTCs were built for the ultimate purpose of being, symbolically and ceremoniously, destroyed.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 20 2006, 08:38 PM)
The top part of the bottom box column looks like the outside edge chamfered. Maybe there was a weld on that side. If there was, it wasn't a through-weld.
If gypsum board was used to insulate the interior columns and no fire proofing was placed on the metal itself, that would have been a disaster. The metal would have been totally unprotected after the gypsum got jolted off by the aircraft impacts.
Those cuts!!!!
I'm going to have to reverse a previously reversed decision. I have reversed a number of decisions in the past, but never gone back and forth.
You remind me, those cannot be elevator guide rails because they HAVE that cut, and that cut is reserved for interior box columns only. Judging by the thickness my original estimate of around the 80th floor or perhaps a little lower. If we could get a close estimate of the distance between the brackets it might show the distance between floors.
I believe you are correct, there is a chamfer, which might fit into the method of C4 sandwiched between 2 steel plates cast into the floor. I do not know exactly what that looks like but it stands a better chance of leaving a cut like that than any other method I can think of, considering what I've read about shape charges.
If gypsum board was used to insulate the interior columns and no fire proofing was placed on the metal itself, that would have been a disaster. The metal would have been totally unprotected after the gypsum got jolted off by the aircraft impacts.
Those cuts!!!!
I'm going to have to reverse a previously reversed decision. I have reversed a number of decisions in the past, but never gone back and forth.
You remind me, those cannot be elevator guide rails because they HAVE that cut, and that cut is reserved for interior box columns only. Judging by the thickness my original estimate of around the 80th floor or perhaps a little lower. If we could get a close estimate of the distance between the brackets it might show the distance between floors.
I believe you are correct, there is a chamfer, which might fit into the method of C4 sandwiched between 2 steel plates cast into the floor. I do not know exactly what that looks like but it stands a better chance of leaving a cut like that than any other method I can think of, considering what I've read about shape charges.
Another pic of welding being done on one of the towers.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 20 2006, 09:51 PM)
Another pic of welding being done on one of the towers.
Hi Shagster -
Interesting photo - certainly NOT of the perimeter columns, so it must be somewhere in the central core area...(unless it comes from the underground areas early in the construction phases). The connecting beams (between the columns) are far to small to be the spandrels which ringed the outer columns of the core and to which the truss floor connections were attached (based upon my research & understanding of the core construction), so I wonder where in the towers this photo represents.
I take it you yourself have cached the photo at 'photobucket'?
Can you provide a link to where you originally found that photo?
Thanks
edit to add:
IF nothing else... this thread has brought forth numerous photos which I have never been able to find on my own, and I thank all (on both sides) for contributing to our understanding of actual construction details going far beyond what we were ever able to locate through the limited FEMA / NIST releases. Thanks again.
Hi Shagster -
Interesting photo - certainly NOT of the perimeter columns, so it must be somewhere in the central core area...(unless it comes from the underground areas early in the construction phases). The connecting beams (between the columns) are far to small to be the spandrels which ringed the outer columns of the core and to which the truss floor connections were attached (based upon my research & understanding of the core construction), so I wonder where in the towers this photo represents.
I take it you yourself have cached the photo at 'photobucket'?
Can you provide a link to where you originally found that photo?
Thanks
edit to add:
IF nothing else... this thread has brought forth numerous photos which I have never been able to find on my own, and I thank all (on both sides) for contributing to our understanding of actual construction details going far beyond what we were ever able to locate through the limited FEMA / NIST releases. Thanks again.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 20 2006, 01:11 PM)
The pic I posted earlier regarding bolt failure. Forgot to mention that all three of these remaining bolts failed at the threads. That's not unusual. The threads act as stress concentrators. When the bolt is bent, there is a tensile stress created on one side of the bolt. That stress gets amplified by the sharp geometry of the thread and can act as a crack initiation point. Once the crack starts at a thread, it can propagate across the entire bolt.
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
shagster,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, maintaining the inertia of the thread. You post a lot of relevant material and commentary.
As I write this, I'm thinking, man this is real nitpicking minutia, are you sure you wanna' post this? Against my better judgment:
The bolts were bent 90 degrees AND then there's that groove, which corresponds, directionally, originating from the top right hole. I'm speaking forensically here. Could we infer, that we are looking at top end of a lower column. Above it, would have been its vertical mate.
Could we assume the possibility, that at least one, of the other 3 bolts was reflectively oriented in the face of the corresponding column it was mated with? In other words, bent over, like wise, but in the other direction.
That etched groove and the sideways bending of the bolts, IMHO, tells a tale of how the face(s) moved in relation to one another. For some reason, that (top right) bolt was the high point as the face of the top column moved diagonally left and downward, as referenced against the image above. In order to produced that groove and bending, wouldn't one face have to be, relatively, stationary as the other face, (with the bent bolt), then slid across it. What vector force would or could push purely horizontally and diagonally? Why did one column, lets say its the lower, resist and the upper give way and slide across?
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
shagster,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, maintaining the inertia of the thread. You post a lot of relevant material and commentary.
As I write this, I'm thinking, man this is real nitpicking minutia, are you sure you wanna' post this? Against my better judgment:
The bolts were bent 90 degrees AND then there's that groove, which corresponds, directionally, originating from the top right hole. I'm speaking forensically here. Could we infer, that we are looking at top end of a lower column. Above it, would have been its vertical mate.
Could we assume the possibility, that at least one, of the other 3 bolts was reflectively oriented in the face of the corresponding column it was mated with? In other words, bent over, like wise, but in the other direction.
That etched groove and the sideways bending of the bolts, IMHO, tells a tale of how the face(s) moved in relation to one another. For some reason, that (top right) bolt was the high point as the face of the top column moved diagonally left and downward, as referenced against the image above. In order to produced that groove and bending, wouldn't one face have to be, relatively, stationary as the other face, (with the bent bolt), then slid across it. What vector force would or could push purely horizontally and diagonally? Why did one column, lets say its the lower, resist and the upper give way and slide across?
About the bolts & bolt-holes in this photo...
According to my current understanding the perimeter columns were bolted together in such a fashion, except at the mechanical floors where they were welded - (as well as bolted ?).
Although NIST claims that the central core columns were also 'spliced' with bolted plates, I can't recall seeing any evidence of 'bolted' central core columns. NIST then runs forward with their computer sim models based upon the assumption that central core columns were merely 'splice-bolted' (and NOT welded).
The difference between welding and bolting the main structural central core columns would make a big difference in our perceived plausibility of the miraculous disintegration of these core columns.
Unless someone can show me 'core columns' from the debris pile which show evidence that they were merely bolted together (one on top of another) with splices (or bolt assemblies), I would conclude that the above photo is a close-up of a perimeter column.
In my opinion, photos showing bent bolts of perimeter columns is NOT significant evidence of EITHER failure modes... whether related to gravity-driven or explosives-driven theories.
Once 'collapse' was initiated (by whatever means) we should still expect to see such failures... being as the bolts were the weakest link in the perimeter columns.
Bent bolts provide NO evidence in support of either theory (IMHO).
According to my current understanding the perimeter columns were bolted together in such a fashion, except at the mechanical floors where they were welded - (as well as bolted ?).
Although NIST claims that the central core columns were also 'spliced' with bolted plates, I can't recall seeing any evidence of 'bolted' central core columns. NIST then runs forward with their computer sim models based upon the assumption that central core columns were merely 'splice-bolted' (and NOT welded).
The difference between welding and bolting the main structural central core columns would make a big difference in our perceived plausibility of the miraculous disintegration of these core columns.
Unless someone can show me 'core columns' from the debris pile which show evidence that they were merely bolted together (one on top of another) with splices (or bolt assemblies), I would conclude that the above photo is a close-up of a perimeter column.
In my opinion, photos showing bent bolts of perimeter columns is NOT significant evidence of EITHER failure modes... whether related to gravity-driven or explosives-driven theories.
Once 'collapse' was initiated (by whatever means) we should still expect to see such failures... being as the bolts were the weakest link in the perimeter columns.
Bent bolts provide NO evidence in support of either theory (IMHO).
Christophera... I hate to keep going back, but...
re: this photo...
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
It's YOUR theory... either modify it to fit existing evidence or support it upon the factual evidence as shown in this photo.
Please don't just circumvent the issue now...(only to re-insert your nonsense again later... a hundred pages from now).
After exposure of this photo, either your 'concrete-core' theory still has 'legs' OR it doesn't. Let's get this 'out of the way' once and for all.
Edit to add :
And, Puuuhlease... do not treat us to another magical mystery tour of semantics and sophistry (as the YID has provided innumerable times before). The above photo either supports or refutes your theory. Please be crystal clear on where you stand.
Thanks
re: this photo...
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
It's YOUR theory... either modify it to fit existing evidence or support it upon the factual evidence as shown in this photo.
Please don't just circumvent the issue now...(only to re-insert your nonsense again later... a hundred pages from now).
After exposure of this photo, either your 'concrete-core' theory still has 'legs' OR it doesn't. Let's get this 'out of the way' once and for all.
Edit to add :
And, Puuuhlease... do not treat us to another magical mystery tour of semantics and sophistry (as the YID has provided innumerable times before). The above photo either supports or refutes your theory. Please be crystal clear on where you stand.
Thanks
The welding photo was from either the NOVA or TLC documentary. I'll check.
I don't know the exact nature of how all the core columns were spliced. The pic below shows two sections of column that were welded. Whatever connections were used, many were weaker than the columns themselves, judging by all the short straight pieces of free debris seen during the collapse and the apparent lack of a large tangled web of still-connected columns on the ground.
The photo of that six-way joint of the inner core, however, is a good example of connections that managed to stay together. Note the plastic deformation that was able to occur when the connections didn't fail. If anything, this type of failure will help work against a collapse, as some of the energy is dissipated in bending the metal as opposed to breaking connections and making pieces fly apart. Even if all the failures were of a plastic nature like that, it doesn't mean that the towers wouldn't have collapsed.
I don't know the exact nature of how all the core columns were spliced. The pic below shows two sections of column that were welded. Whatever connections were used, many were weaker than the columns themselves, judging by all the short straight pieces of free debris seen during the collapse and the apparent lack of a large tangled web of still-connected columns on the ground.
The photo of that six-way joint of the inner core, however, is a good example of connections that managed to stay together. Note the plastic deformation that was able to occur when the connections didn't fail. If anything, this type of failure will help work against a collapse, as some of the energy is dissipated in bending the metal as opposed to breaking connections and making pieces fly apart. Even if all the failures were of a plastic nature like that, it doesn't mean that the towers wouldn't have collapsed.
It almost appears as though the column that would have been on top rotated about its axis counterclockwise (looking into the pic) relative to the column in the pic. That might give the pattern of deformation seen on some of the bolt holes and that curved gouge that appears to start at the upper right bolt hole.
Perhaps the column tilted a little first and broke a couple bolts and then rotated about its axis and bent and fractured the rest of the bolts. I'd have to think about it some more.
Perhaps the column tilted a little first and broke a couple bolts and then rotated about its axis and bent and fractured the rest of the bolts. I'd have to think about it some more.
I cached the photos at photobucket. Some of them you may not see anywhere else.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 01:43 AM)
I cached the photos at photobucket. Some of them you may not see anywhere else.
Thanks, but...
does not answer the question... where did you find them originally?
link, please...
Foxx
Thanks, but...
does not answer the question... where did you find them originally?
link, please...
Foxx
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 01:01 AM)
Christophera... I hate to keep going back, but...
re: this photo...
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
It's YOUR theory... either modify it to fit existing evidence or support it upon the factual evidence as shown in this photo.
Please don't just circumvent the issue now...(only to re-insert your nonsense again later... a hundred pages from now).
After exposure of this photo, either your 'concrete-core' theory still has 'legs' OR it doesn't. Let's get this 'out of the way' once and for all.
Edit to add :
And, Puuuhlease... do not treat us to another magical mystery tour of semantics and sophistry (as the YID has provided innumerable times before). The above photo either supports or refutes your theory. Please be crystal clear on where you stand.
Thanks
Thanks.
The concrete core has never been a theory for me. I know it was there, that is why I'm able to use so much of the evidence to support the existence of concrete.
People trying to deny the concrete sometimes bring evidence to prove steel and I take it and then use it to help show the concrete that was really there, or that steel columns were not.
Now we have 3 images. Mine shows the concrete core wall between the interior box columns and the stairwell. No steel columns are seen there, and if the stairs exist like that the columns would have to be pulled straight up to be removed with out destroying the stairs. No steel columns are seen to the right of the stairs near what is the center of the core.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif
Your image, I've notated it, green arrows are elevator guide rails or landing support structures and the long row on the left are interior box columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
I claim the concrete existed but was blown into sand and gravel or smaller chunks by explosives located in the center of the concrete and there were no steel core columns inside the core. We do see steel in the core area of your image, but at the higher elevation we see none.
In the below photo.
We see the spire formed by interior box columns identified by the spacing between columns. No steel core columns behind and right of it where they should be.
From another angle, right and behind the spire in the above image
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg
We see the spire and the shear wall of the core left of it. No steel columns behind it or to the left where they should be. Below closer,
From almost the opposite side of the first spire image.
We see the interior box columns silhouetted against the shear wall it is fastened to, but again, no columns behind and to the left where we should see them.
In all, we do not see concrete where you think it should show but I would expect it to be missing, but you haven't yet explained why the steel columns are not seen where I think they should be in many images, not one. And, ........ one of those images shows exactly what I would expect the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core would look like.
re: this photo...
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
It's YOUR theory... either modify it to fit existing evidence or support it upon the factual evidence as shown in this photo.
Please don't just circumvent the issue now...(only to re-insert your nonsense again later... a hundred pages from now).
After exposure of this photo, either your 'concrete-core' theory still has 'legs' OR it doesn't. Let's get this 'out of the way' once and for all.
Edit to add :
And, Puuuhlease... do not treat us to another magical mystery tour of semantics and sophistry (as the YID has provided innumerable times before). The above photo either supports or refutes your theory. Please be crystal clear on where you stand.
Thanks
Thanks.
The concrete core has never been a theory for me. I know it was there, that is why I'm able to use so much of the evidence to support the existence of concrete.
People trying to deny the concrete sometimes bring evidence to prove steel and I take it and then use it to help show the concrete that was really there, or that steel columns were not.
Now we have 3 images. Mine shows the concrete core wall between the interior box columns and the stairwell. No steel columns are seen there, and if the stairs exist like that the columns would have to be pulled straight up to be removed with out destroying the stairs. No steel columns are seen to the right of the stairs near what is the center of the core.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif
Your image, I've notated it, green arrows are elevator guide rails or landing support structures and the long row on the left are interior box columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
I claim the concrete existed but was blown into sand and gravel or smaller chunks by explosives located in the center of the concrete and there were no steel core columns inside the core. We do see steel in the core area of your image, but at the higher elevation we see none.
In the below photo.
We see the spire formed by interior box columns identified by the spacing between columns. No steel core columns behind and right of it where they should be.
From another angle, right and behind the spire in the above image
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg
We see the spire and the shear wall of the core left of it. No steel columns behind it or to the left where they should be. Below closer,
From almost the opposite side of the first spire image.
We see the interior box columns silhouetted against the shear wall it is fastened to, but again, no columns behind and to the left where we should see them.
In all, we do not see concrete where you think it should show but I would expect it to be missing, but you haven't yet explained why the steel columns are not seen where I think they should be in many images, not one. And, ........ one of those images shows exactly what I would expect the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core would look like.
Someone made some notes about the pic below (Gordon?). I would assume that column was part of the interior of the core. That column looks too small to be a box column at the corner of the core perimeter or anywhere along the perimeter, although I could be wrong. Not sure if any of the core box columns along its perimeter were that small even near the top of the tower.
Part of the spire is seen bent over in this pic. There's a layer of gray colored material attached to it that is bent over along with it.
Replying to Christophera (above)...
Did I NOT ask you to respond clearly... without semantics, rhetorics, and sophistry?
You repeat the same nonsense as you have done previously.
End of transmission...
according to Christophera... the concrete core theory still LIVES !
Intelligent persons will have to decide for themselves based upon previous postings.
Manyana
Did I NOT ask you to respond clearly... without semantics, rhetorics, and sophistry?
You repeat the same nonsense as you have done previously.
End of transmission...
according to Christophera... the concrete core theory still LIVES !
Intelligent persons will have to decide for themselves based upon previous postings.
Manyana
I don't see the hallways. I see what looks like some wisps of dust clouds in front of the darker colored box columns.
QUOTE
I don't see the hallways. I see what looks like some wisps of dust clouds in front of the darker colored box columns.
Yeah. It was all dirt. No hallways.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 01:49 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 01:43 AM)
I cached the photos at photobucket. Some of them you may not see anywhere else.
Thanks, but...
does not answer the question... where did you find them originally?
link, please...
Foxx
There isn't a link. I remember snapping some from video of documentaries. You might want to check out some of the documentaries by PBS, NOVA, TLC, and the like. There was also a documentary made in 1983 about the construction of the towers that was about 20 minutes long. It wasn't very technical, but there was some nice video. A low resolution version is on the web somewhere. I don't even remember the name of it. I think it was made by the Port Authority. Check your local library too. They may have a better version of the 20 minute doc.
Nearly all of the pics I have posted are from the web, but I don't remember all the sources.
Thanks, but...
does not answer the question... where did you find them originally?
link, please...
Foxx
There isn't a link. I remember snapping some from video of documentaries. You might want to check out some of the documentaries by PBS, NOVA, TLC, and the like. There was also a documentary made in 1983 about the construction of the towers that was about 20 minutes long. It wasn't very technical, but there was some nice video. A low resolution version is on the web somewhere. I don't even remember the name of it. I think it was made by the Port Authority. Check your local library too. They may have a better version of the 20 minute doc.
Nearly all of the pics I have posted are from the web, but I don't remember all the sources.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 01:57 AM)
Someone made some notes about the pic below (Gordon?). I would assume that column was part of the interior of the core. That column looks too small to be a box column at the corner of the core perimeter or anywhere along the perimeter, although I could be wrong. Not sure if any of the core box columns along its perimeter were that small even near the top of the tower.
That is an interior box column very near the top. 14 x 14 inch extruded, hand fabbed not used near top, no need. Wall thickness decreased all the way to the type.
Image below. Right tower is the north tower, from the right to the left; perimeter box column, left across floor space, the next dark column is an an interior box column, not inside the core, like the spire, left to the concrete core, left, dark column or core face, left, hallway.
Note the thin line of light on the right is narrower at the bottom. The column had to remain plumb while the concrete core face tapered upward.
Below, the double beams going to up to the right connected the interior box column to other steel fastened to the concrete core face.
That is an interior box column very near the top. 14 x 14 inch extruded, hand fabbed not used near top, no need. Wall thickness decreased all the way to the type.
Image below. Right tower is the north tower, from the right to the left; perimeter box column, left across floor space, the next dark column is an an interior box column, not inside the core, like the spire, left to the concrete core, left, dark column or core face, left, hallway.
Note the thin line of light on the right is narrower at the bottom. The column had to remain plumb while the concrete core face tapered upward.
Below, the double beams going to up to the right connected the interior box column to other steel fastened to the concrete core face.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 02:14 AM)
Part of the spire is seen bent over in this pic. There's a layer of gray colored material attached to it that is bent over along with it.
That would follow this shot from a chopper overhead.
My perception is that the explosive coating on the rebar went off a fracton of a second before the above image. Some horizontal motion is still visible in horizontal billows of particulate down low.
That would follow this shot from a chopper overhead.
My perception is that the explosive coating on the rebar went off a fracton of a second before the above image. Some horizontal motion is still visible in horizontal billows of particulate down low.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 02:16 AM)
I don't see the hallways. I see what looks like some wisps of dust clouds in front of the darker colored box columns.
It's not easy to see. Really all that is discernable through the dust are 2 evenly spaced light zones having a dark zone between them, the bottom one has a fairly sharp horizontal line. The original size is where I spotted it first.
It's not easy to see. Really all that is discernable through the dust are 2 evenly spaced light zones having a dark zone between them, the bottom one has a fairly sharp horizontal line. The original size is where I spotted it first.
I haven't read through all of the NIST and FEMA reports, but do they document with photos how the core columns were spliced and how they failed? Also, do they document with photos how the core columns were fire-proofed?
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 05:50 AM)
I haven't read through all of the NIST and FEMA reports, but do they document with photos how the core columns were spliced and how they failed? Also, do they document with photos how the core columns were fire-proofed?
I have a hard time imagining anything of value coming from those sources. Sure, some accurate information joined with critical misinformation.
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary.
As the north tower fell I realized I had watched the 2 hour documentary 11 years earlier. Within a few months I realized the official investigation was a fake so I began getting more familiar with the web and bb's to get hooked up with people had already accessed the information I needed to engage my memory which was acting kind of latent. After a few months I found a bb, 9-11pi.com, now gone. There were mostly people who had data on stock puts, a few discussing the structure, free fall, molten steel. I saw an amazing photo of a piece of steel beam melted with round surfaces, as if dipped in molten steel, crusty chemical stuck to it. Nothing was actually jogging my memory on the structural subject and the WTC report wasn't out yet.
Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it. In thinking about the dust, thermal, cloud formations, I began to apply similar thinking that I had developed to understand how to load high explosives into rock formations with varying thickness and hardness with maximized effectiveness in creating sand and gravel. I found a few diagrams of structural stuff that was pure nonsense, supposing to be the towers and did not even get close to reminding me of anything I’d ever seen.
So I took that thinking about the shape of things, distances to daylight through various hardnesses of strata, placement and distribution of charges and I decided to do a fantasy controlled demolition in my head with one sole purpose; to re create exactly what was seen on that Tuesday morning.
The criteria for the fantasy demo of a tower had an unlimited budget, cost was NO consideration at all, time no consideration. Even if almost impossible, it will be done. The only thing that mattered was taking the structure I knew existed (not fully remembered yet) and getting charges in position an make it happen just like it was seen. I started with devising a method to set charges in the core I remembered.
What I came up with was this. On the roof with a track mounted rock drill, 2 inch holes are drilled on 3 foot centers all the way to the foundations through the core on all 4 concrete shear walls (I have no idea authority is preparing a lie about the core). Then a drill is taken onto each floor where the shear walls of the core are cross drilled on 3 foot centers on all four sides, forming a grid with the vertical holes. This continues on every floor all the way down. then I started thinking about how to load the holes.
I figured ANFLO with dynamite primers every five feet with delays every forty. I was actually kind of proud of myself for getting it loaded in away that would nicely bust up all that concrete and just make an expanding debris cloud without hardly even looking like an explosion.
THEN I realized I had forgotten something VERY important, because it took the needed action into an area very close to impossible. I forgot the fooking rebar!! How are you going to run carbide insert drill bits into high temper steel rebar all day????????????
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of. It had to be xrayed, and, then recoated with the special plastic anti corrosion vibration resistant coating, and and and, that was a real pain on the job, the welders were pissed because they didn’t get the extra work, but they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have a security clearance, and and and. oh shiite!! the welding contractor told the videographers that they were told by the port authority that the special plastic coating was flammable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The rebar grid matched perfectly the drilled grid in the fantasy demo. Special plastic “anti vibration" coating became plastic explosive coating and my memories of the forced evacuations of the floors, the special security around the storage container the “special rebar” was kept in, flooded my mind. The documentary had a strong sense of mystery around that “special plastic coating”.
A few months later I remembered reading in a magazine, in around 1973, about C4 coated rebar used in missile silos and sub bases for a self destruct capacity.
Oh, then the WTC report came out and I was flabbergasted at what they showed for the core.
OMG!!
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I have a hard time imagining anything of value coming from those sources. Sure, some accurate information joined with critical misinformation.
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary.
As the north tower fell I realized I had watched the 2 hour documentary 11 years earlier. Within a few months I realized the official investigation was a fake so I began getting more familiar with the web and bb's to get hooked up with people had already accessed the information I needed to engage my memory which was acting kind of latent. After a few months I found a bb, 9-11pi.com, now gone. There were mostly people who had data on stock puts, a few discussing the structure, free fall, molten steel. I saw an amazing photo of a piece of steel beam melted with round surfaces, as if dipped in molten steel, crusty chemical stuck to it. Nothing was actually jogging my memory on the structural subject and the WTC report wasn't out yet.
Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it. In thinking about the dust, thermal, cloud formations, I began to apply similar thinking that I had developed to understand how to load high explosives into rock formations with varying thickness and hardness with maximized effectiveness in creating sand and gravel. I found a few diagrams of structural stuff that was pure nonsense, supposing to be the towers and did not even get close to reminding me of anything I’d ever seen.
So I took that thinking about the shape of things, distances to daylight through various hardnesses of strata, placement and distribution of charges and I decided to do a fantasy controlled demolition in my head with one sole purpose; to re create exactly what was seen on that Tuesday morning.
The criteria for the fantasy demo of a tower had an unlimited budget, cost was NO consideration at all, time no consideration. Even if almost impossible, it will be done. The only thing that mattered was taking the structure I knew existed (not fully remembered yet) and getting charges in position an make it happen just like it was seen. I started with devising a method to set charges in the core I remembered.
What I came up with was this. On the roof with a track mounted rock drill, 2 inch holes are drilled on 3 foot centers all the way to the foundations through the core on all 4 concrete shear walls (I have no idea authority is preparing a lie about the core). Then a drill is taken onto each floor where the shear walls of the core are cross drilled on 3 foot centers on all four sides, forming a grid with the vertical holes. This continues on every floor all the way down. then I started thinking about how to load the holes.
I figured ANFLO with dynamite primers every five feet with delays every forty. I was actually kind of proud of myself for getting it loaded in away that would nicely bust up all that concrete and just make an expanding debris cloud without hardly even looking like an explosion.
THEN I realized I had forgotten something VERY important, because it took the needed action into an area very close to impossible. I forgot the fooking rebar!! How are you going to run carbide insert drill bits into high temper steel rebar all day????????????
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of. It had to be xrayed, and, then recoated with the special plastic anti corrosion vibration resistant coating, and and and, that was a real pain on the job, the welders were pissed because they didn’t get the extra work, but they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have a security clearance, and and and. oh shiite!! the welding contractor told the videographers that they were told by the port authority that the special plastic coating was flammable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The rebar grid matched perfectly the drilled grid in the fantasy demo. Special plastic “anti vibration" coating became plastic explosive coating and my memories of the forced evacuations of the floors, the special security around the storage container the “special rebar” was kept in, flooded my mind. The documentary had a strong sense of mystery around that “special plastic coating”.
A few months later I remembered reading in a magazine, in around 1973, about C4 coated rebar used in missile silos and sub bases for a self destruct capacity.
Oh, then the WTC report came out and I was flabbergasted at what they showed for the core.
OMG!!
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Do you remember the name of the 2-hour documentary? Was it made specifically by PBS or someone else and PBS aired it? I don't know of too many docs about the towers pre-911 other than the 20-minute one I mentioned earlier. Was it made in 1990 or made earlier and aired in 1990?
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2006, 07:52 AM)
Do you remember the name of the 2-hour documentary? Was it made specifically by PBS or someone else and PBS aired it? I don't know of too many docs about the towers pre-911 other than the 20-minute one I mentioned earlier.
Yes, it was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." I believe the 1990 PBS show mentioned the one from 1983 as kind a celebratory introduction to the towers construction. It identified its own role as one detailing the actual construction of some of the tallest buildings in the world.
It was made by PBS by a special team of producers and videographers that really pried the data from its sources. Production started in 1986-87 and finished/aired 89-90. It was mentioned that because the buildings were funded by public money that PBS had inherent access to all the material, and that there was some resistence to getting some of it.
They actually took almost 5 minutes or so to talk about the process of digesting all the data, film, still photos, construction plans, work orders, memos etc, not quite complete, final set used for the "redesigned" core was delivered three days before work was to begin. The digestion and research took 2 years. Narration described how the film rolls were not logged, dating on the film cans was solid but sketchy in a few periods. After talking about the public rejection of the WTC and Rockefellers push, then the decision to just build it, Yamasakis taking the basic design and choosing the concrete core, they got into the actual construction from the pit up and welding the rebar of the core was a recurring issue in the building of the tower to the top.
Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
Yes, it was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers." I believe the 1990 PBS show mentioned the one from 1983 as kind a celebratory introduction to the towers construction. It identified its own role as one detailing the actual construction of some of the tallest buildings in the world.
It was made by PBS by a special team of producers and videographers that really pried the data from its sources. Production started in 1986-87 and finished/aired 89-90. It was mentioned that because the buildings were funded by public money that PBS had inherent access to all the material, and that there was some resistence to getting some of it.
They actually took almost 5 minutes or so to talk about the process of digesting all the data, film, still photos, construction plans, work orders, memos etc, not quite complete, final set used for the "redesigned" core was delivered three days before work was to begin. The digestion and research took 2 years. Narration described how the film rolls were not logged, dating on the film cans was solid but sketchy in a few periods. After talking about the public rejection of the WTC and Rockefellers push, then the decision to just build it, Yamasakis taking the basic design and choosing the concrete core, they got into the actual construction from the pit up and welding the rebar of the core was a recurring issue in the building of the tower to the top.
Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
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.