The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Hey you too. Good trading data with you.

I'm mainly here for Pentagon debate though. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, lots to do, so I wish you a Merry Christmas and I'll see you after.

Cool. I like the pentagon too. Ever seen this one before?



Call me when you get back. Happy Happy!

Originally posted by intrptr

I don't have a pic of it handy, but one facsimile to your point is that straw is driven into telephone poles during tornados and at 2 or 3 hundred miles an hour.

Q: There are reports of straw and other debris penetrating cattle, trees and other solid objects during a tornado. Does this occur because of the wind speeds involved, or is there any truth to something I was told which is the "inside" of the tornado is a perfect vacuum that causes solid objects to basically "open up" or pull apart?

A: You're correct, there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96)

www.usatoday.com...

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by intrptr
I don't have a pic of it handy, but one facsimile to your point is that straw is driven into telephone poles during tornados and at 2 or 3 hundred miles an hour.

Q: There are reports of straw and other debris penetrating cattle, trees and other solid objects during a tornado. Does this occur because of the wind speeds involved, or is there any truth to something I was told which is the "inside" of the tornado is a perfect vacuum that causes solid objects to basically "open up" or pull apart?
A: You're correct, there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96)

www.usatoday.com...

Hey you could be right. I think I remember hearing that as well. (now that you reminded me) Hmmm...
There is a thread on here and a pic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: about tornados anyway.

reply to post by intrptr


Yeah, same concept...the mass of the plywood strikes the fibrous trunk of the palm sideways, slicing through. Same idea with the images of LP records stuck in logs.

With the wings, a more accurate analogy would be the straw striking the tree trunk sideways, or the plywood cutting the tree down.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr

 

Yeah, same concept...the mass of the plywood strikes the fibrous trunk of the palm sideways, slicing through. Same idea with the images of LP records stuck in logs.

With the wings, a more accurate analogy would be the straw striking the tree trunk sideways, or the plywood cutting the tree down.

OK, I get that. About trees and straw.

About the size of holes in WTC. This one is about the "woman in the hole", but shows the size of impact and something in the foreground to provide scale... poor girl. Note upon close up of her, the missing steel uprights and "bent inwards" look:

reply to post by intrptr


Yeah, I have a thread discussing the damage. It is inconsistent with the head-on impact of a swept-back wing. Besides, the mass of the wing would be like the straw striking the side of a barn sideways. With the mass spread out over its wingspan, penetration doesn't figure.

This is why missiles are essentially long, dense spears tipped with titanium. By concentrating their mass on a small point at impact, the missile can penetrate. Same thing with bullets.

I like to use a spear analogy...throw a spear at a tree and it'll impale the tree. Throw the same spear at the tree sideways, and the spear won't impale the tree. Same mass, same velocity, but because the mass of the spear isn't focused on a small point of impact, the damage is completely different.

The wings are the spear striking sideways against a forest of trees.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Kester

This thread is about the reinforced concrete infill panels apparently paid for by the insurers yet not acknowledged by leading investigators on both sides of the debate. I can't see anything that makes the existence of these panels impossible. If they were there and it was very efficiently covered up there must be a valid reason. Given that the precise method, or more accurately methods of destruction is the main issue that has prevented a satisfactory result I'm pressing for a real debate on the existence or nonexistence of these panels.

I'm waiting for someone to pull the rug out from under me and prove that these panels could not have been part of the towers.

Ah, right. I know of someone who might know... I'll report back to the thread if I find out.. No promises though.

Do realize: there is a way a journalist would go about this: he would contact persons involved in the construction and/or maintenance of the WTC. Citizen journalism..!

edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Words can only ever be evidence that someone said or wrote those words, and not necessarily the individual credited with saying or writing those words. Words can suggest where to look for photographic, video and physical evidence. I already know what I'm looking for.

Take a look at the state of the world and ask yourself how much of that is the result of some individuals taking the words of other individuals at face value.

I was recently involved in an animal cruelty investigation. I discovered that a neighbour of the guilty party had photographic evidence. I went to their house and found the photographers husband had destroyed the photograph due to fear of retaliation. Imagine the situation if a construction or maintenance worker had evidence of the most heinous crime in history. If they answered an email with the words "Yes, I have the evidence." their life expectancy could be measured in minutes.

Fresh Kills Landfill. It's all there. Unless someone switched it which even I find highly unlikely.

There are some close up photographs that show what could be the remains of concrete panels between the beams and columns, or could be debris that has landed in that position. If obvious evidence was commonly available this issue would have been sorted out many years ago. My words give investigators the information they need to search out evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine

Do you know that the insurers insured such panels or are you speculating? Why would the panels be anything more than a construction detail? Why would they have to be related to the collapse?

John Knapton's WTC teaching page claims the existence of these panels. Lloyds chose him as their adviser. It seems reasonable to assume his story to the world and his story to Lloyds are identical in this respect.

Construction details are reality. This is a real world investigation.

Which collapse are you referring to? What myself and many others see is an explosive disintegration. If we see radically different things when looking at the same videos and photographs at least one of us is mistaken.

I see photographs taken from the space station showing a massive amount of material travelling horizontally. Collapse means fall down. I also see material travelling outwards from the postion the towers occupied. Much of it in very small particles. This is some of the same material that is added together and used for calculations of the weight bearing down on the remainder of the buildings. This is something I've always had a problem with when listening to explanations for the destruction of the buildings. If much of this material can be clearly seen outside the perimeter of the building how can it be bearing down on the building?

The pieces of the perimeter wall that remained standing confirm that a large proportion of the building materials did not travel in the direction gravity usually works. If it had done so these perimeter wall remains could not have survived. The larger parts of the buildings that fell down could be said to have collapsed. If a bag of flour poured out can be described as 'collapsing' then the dust that coated the area could be said to have collapsed though this seems to be a stretch.

The enormous quantity of video and photographic evidence brings to my mind the words explosive disintegration. Your use of the word collapse is your right on the grounds of free speech. If you were to re-word your question "How could they have been related to the explosive disintegration?" I could answer with a summary of how I feel they could have been related.

reply to post by intrptr


Problem had at pentagon was not only the fire in the lowest levels from the aircraft impact, but fire running the
roof and threatening the entire building

Pentagon roof was made of layer of felt (made from Horsehair) coated with tar then overlaid by roof slate

Fie had gotten into the felt/tar roof layer and was burning there spreading outward and extending to the rest of
the structure

FF had to chop through the slate with axes and sledge hmmes to expose the burning layer beneath

Had to try to get ahead of the fire and cut it off - took 2 days of brutal work to do it

Used a small old ladder truck from department in Frederick Maryland which was small enough to fit through the
inner roadway of the Pentagon to flood the burning sections with water from nozzle on ladder tip

Read book FIREFIGHT which goes into detail of the fires and recovery efforts at the Pentagon

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by intrptr

 

Problem had at pentagon was not only the fire in the lowest levels from the aircraft impact, but fire running the
roof and threatening the entire building

The problem at the Pentagon was the wall that stubbornly refused to fall giving time for members of the public to get numerous photographs from many angles of the hole that April Gallup carried her injured child through. The problem at the Pentagon was the inevitable lack of cooperation that evil people get from inanimate objects. The Problem at the Pentagon was the budget analysts who had 20 minutes to find the notorious unaccounted for 2.3 trillion dollars before they were viciously attacked. You only have to type in 2.3 trillion and you're straight onto story after story about the missing money.

Every day we discover more and more about the False Flag conspirators responsible for the horrific crimes we're investigating.

reply to post by septic

Sorry for the time it took to reply. I overlooked your comment.

The wings are the spear striking sideways against a forest of trees.

The "Spear" was the main body of the plane, no?

reply to post by thedman

Thank you for that reply. I didn't know the roof had "horse hair" mixed with tar. Or that it took 2 days of work to catch the smoldering mess and extinguish it. Crazy detail. I can see now why the damage was beyond the third ring and why roof "collapsed" on "E" ring in photo. Thanks for explaining that.

reply to post by intrptr



If you can get a copy of FIREFIGHT

www.amazon.com...

Answers llot of questions what went on

reply to post by intrptr


Here is some information from FIRE ENGINEERING about roof construction

ROOF FIRE
As the operation progressed and headway was being made, it became evident that the fire on the roof was not going to be extinguished or contained without substantial effort. Captain John Snider of the ACFD was assigned to join DCFD Truck 10 in an attempt to get a handle on the situation. The roof's construction was the cause of the problem. The roof appeared to be a typical slate roof over timber slats. However, on making entry into the roof, personnel found that under the timber slats were furring strips of wood, spaced every two feet or so, running from the ridge down toward the face wall. This wooden assembly was erected over a concrete roof deck, which was six inches thick. There was also a sublayer of tar-and-horsehair insulation, which was melting and igniting.

The furring strips created a 6-inch to 8-inch void space, which was contributing to fire spread and making extinguishment difficult. An inspection hole bored into the concrete showed it to be about six inches thick. Breaching it would be labor-intensive. Since the actual roof of the Pentagon was the concrete sub roof, it was determined that the roof fire posed no real concern for the companies operating below inside the corridors. The fire was threatening to impinge on a cluster of fresh-air intakes for the bunker in which Pentagon command staff were secured many levels belowground. The fire also threatened a cluster of communications antennae crucial to operational effectiveness. These air intakes and antennae were deemed crucial to the ability not only of the Command staff to stay secure in their underground bunker but also for the Pentagon to be able to maintain uplinks with its worldwide intelligence-gathering resources. If the communications were compromised, it would effectively cripple the installation's ability to react to the ongoing threat.

Since neither of these exposures could tolerate impingement, crews made a trench cut to interrupt the fire spread. Crews worked feverishly to contain and control the advancing fire and were successful in delaying it sufficiently on the first day so they could gain some breathing room. All roof operations were suspended at 2000 hours, to safeguard the personnel. Efforts were redoubled the next day; the fire on the roof was eventually declared under control.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by septic

 

Sorry for the time it took to reply. I overlooked your comment.

The wings are the spear striking sideways against a forest of trees.

The "Spear" was the main body of the plane, no?

The "spear" was the main body of the plane, except in this case the spear is a hollow aluminum shell, not solid, dense material tipped with titanium.

The plane loses no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by intrptr

 

Problem had at pentagon was not only the fire in the lowest levels from the aircraft impact, but fire running the
roof and threatening the entire building

The problem at the Pentagon was the wall that stubbornly refused to fall giving time for members of the public to get numerous photographs from many angles of the hole that April Gallup carried her injured child through. The problem at the Pentagon was the inevitable lack of cooperation that evil people get from inanimate objects. The Problem at the Pentagon was the budget analysts who had 20 minutes to find the notorious unaccounted for 2.3 trillion dollars before they were viciously attacked. You only have to type in 2.3 trillion and you're straight onto story after story about the missing money.

Every day we discover more and more about the False Flag conspirators responsible for the horrific crimes we're investigating.

Nice...it's refreshing to see someone on ATS pointing out this stuff.

reply to post by intrptr


If the fires were so hot, how could that woman have survived and stood where she did?

It is obvious that the fire was not as substantial as we are lead to believe. It didn't spread and get larger, it was already extinguished, and cooled, at the impact point before the collapse.

So how could fire have had any effect on the building, especially as the collapse supposedly initiated where the aircraft impacted? The steel could not have been hot enough to cause the trusses to sag at the collapse level if a woman could stand there.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by intrptr

 

If the fires were so hot, how could that woman have survived and stood where she did?

It is obvious that the fire was not as substantial as we are lead to believe. It didn't spread and get larger, it was already extinguished, and cooled, at the impact point before the collapse.

So how could fire have had any effect on the building, especially as the collapse supposedly initiated where the aircraft impacted? The steel could not have been hot enough to cause the trusses to sag at the collapse level if a woman could stand there.

What you said.

The fires were clearly dying.

What fuel was available to feed these "steel-melting" fires? Human bodies and office furniture? Please.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

Do you know that the insurers insured such panels or are you speculating? Why would the panels be anything more than a construction detail? Why would they have to be related to the collapse?

John Knapton's WTC teaching page claims the existence of these panels. Lloyds chose him as their adviser. It seems reasonable to assume his story to the world and his story to Lloyds are identical in this respect.

Construction details are reality. This is a real world investigation.

Which collapse are you referring to? What myself and many others see is an explosive disintegration. If we see radically different things when looking at the same videos and photographs at least one of us is mistaken.

The enormous quantity of video and photographic evidence brings to my mind the words explosive disintegration. Your use of the word collapse is your right on the grounds of free speech. If you were to re-word your question "How could they have been related to the explosive disintegration?" I could answer with a summary of how I feel they could have been related.

Whether his story is consistent is not in question. John Knapton's WTC teaching page could be consistently incorrect about the construction details. As to the need for concrete panels for your theory, what would happen if there were no concrete panels? Would you then need to hide explosives in the drywall panels? Maybe you don't need concrete panels after all. You stll haven't postulated how the demolitions were initiated, started at the correct floor, or where the magic rebar was placed within the concrete so your theory is not yet past the imagination stage.
"Explosive disintegration" is misapplied term. Many on this site who want a demolition will believe anything as long as it allows demolition. The way a large structure is demolished is that key supports are cut and gravity brings things down. Blowing things UP is really inefficient and pointless. Using enough explosive to convert everything to dust would have included very large explosions and been as obvious as a demolition. You wouldn't know that as your 'theory' is not bounded by reality.
Your interpretation of the video of collapse is clouded by your predetermined conclusion and lack of understanding of mechanical principles and the way the buildings were constructed. Consider that the outer columns were peeling away from the building as the outer floor truss joints sheared during a pancake collapse. Nothng moved up; all went out and down. This is what you think was explosive and it was a gravitational collapse.

Concrete infill panels are nonsense. The only evidence we have for this is a quote from a british concrete expert. They're not present in any drawings, video or photographic evidence.

I'll take this seriously when I see some evidence that such panels have ever been used in any steel framed building for any structural purpose.