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

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
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.

None of the contents are in any of the damage photos, and 110 concrete floors aren't present in video or photographic evidence either, but that doesn't stop true believers from both sides steadfastly insisting they existed.

reply to post by thedman

Thank you for those replies and links, thedman. Instead of bashing ones theories with "oh,please..." or, "gimmee a break", you provide information and links. I like that. See everyone, this man is setting an example for yall.

A snippet from you post:

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.

The second "it was close" story I have heard about the pentagram. The other one I heard was about the fire threatening water pipes whose job was to cool all the defense computers in the building. Did you have any more on that, by any chance?

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?

The only way is if the wind was blowing in a favorable direction, as in "into" the building. This side of the building was the "inflow". She is standing right on the edge at the bottom of the impact gouge where heat would be less intense. For those who didn't see any fire this video shows quite a bit all around the jagged hole.

The fact she is visible at all means that that side of the building was drawing fresh air into the building. How she survives impact and then climbing up to the ledge is a miracle in of itself. Ask her how she did it she would probably tell you she, "climbed up thru the wreckage to fresh air and light". In the last few seconds of this one you can see smoke (which means heat) blowing across where she had been. By the way, she is standing in the bottom of the hole made by the left engine. The other dude is off to her left.

reply to post by intrptr


Just after that picture was taken she jumped.......

So much for "fires not that bad"

Question: Have you ever been in a burning building ? Explain why people jumped if fires not that bad

reply to post by intrptr


If get time will have to check copy of FIREFIGHT

Believe it make reference to that....

reply to post by septic

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.

The plane body is far from hollow. Besides nose gear, 10,000 gallons of gas in tanks (@ 40 tons of liquid), you got the passenger cabin (shell within a shell), the main spars, foundation cross members below the cabin, luggage hold, luggage, seats, people, oh and tail section. Then the engines, wing gear and many supporting struts in there. Lots of this stuff went right thru both sides of the building. Exo skeleton was only thing stopping it from penetrating at 500 MPH no less. Both plane and building lost.

What? You thought it was going to bounce off?

reply to post by intrptr


Sorry not buying it. If the steel was so hot that it could fail, there is no way a person would be able to stand even close to it. No matter what way the wind was blowing. For steel to be malleable it needs to be at least 200°C, and even that temp it would not fail, the temps would have to be much higher than that. For the steel to reach anywhere near the temp for failure, the air temps would be in the thousands of degrees. You have to understand heat transfer to realise that the steel would never reach the same temp as the fire itself. Fire would have to be directly on the steel. Once the fire is not touching the steel the steel temps would drop. So no fire on the steel at the impact point, and bellow, means the steel could not have been hot enough to fail.

You're just making excuses. She wasn't the only person standing near there btw...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by intrptr

 

Sorry not buying it. If the steel was so hot that it could fail, there is no way a person would be able to stand even close to it. No matter what way the wind was blowing. For steel to be malleable it needs to be at least 200°C, and even that temp it would not fail, the temps would have to be much higher than that. For the steel to reach anywhere near the temp for failure, the air temps would be in the thousands of degrees. You have to understand heat transfer to realise that the steel would never reach the same temp as the fire itself. Fire would have to be directly on the steel. Once the fire is not touching the steel the steel temps would drop. So no fire on the steel at the impact point, and bellow, means the steel could not have been hot enough to fail.

The steel in the impact zone was cut not burned thru. The fires... wait, there were no fires? Oh. never mind.

According to the chart in the above video it takes less than 1 hour to "weaken" the structural integrity of steel. We don't need thousands of degrees and we don't need it to melt. Just enough girders and truss supports added to the already impact damaged exo skeleton to let go of one concrete floor. Gravity did the rest.

I think the debate on here is wether there were even planes and wether the buildings came down as a result of or were helped along in order to collapse. Check this one out. Click on at 1:50 and turn_it_up!


I don't care who you are, that is insane devastatingly WHAM! Oh, right it's faked...

bite your tongue
Edit: AT :20 into this one as well. Look to the right after impact at all the crap (on fire) that went right thru the building like butter.


There is way too much to fake going on here from all different viewers cameras and different angles.

reply to post by intrptr


As a jet passenger I can attest that however sturdy their hulls, they are hollow and were they capable of puncturing hardened targets like missiles, there would be no need for missiles.

The wings alone are all the proof we need that the "plane-shaped hole" is pure Hollywood...forget the fuselage, look at the wings. There's no way the mass distribution of a wing could slice a dozen or so columns.

The relatively soft, .050 inch thick aluminum skin supported by various ribs and spars would be no match for these babies.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr

 

As a jet passenger I can attest that however sturdy their hulls, they are hollow and were they capable of puncturing hardened targets like missiles, there would be no need for missiles.

As a passenger? Planes are strong, wings are the strongest to take loads during rotation off runways and storms and manuvers at 600 mph. WTC were not "hardened" . And you're right. A tomahawk cruise couldn't have done near the damage with a single strike (except nuke of course) They used the biggest smartest "cruise" missiles EVER, EVER. Our own airliner molotov cocktail bombs against us. Biggest non nuke strike in the world, ever.

The wings alone are all the proof we need that the "plane-shaped hole" is pure Hollywood...forget the fuselage, look at the wings. There's no way the mass distribution of a wing could slice a dozen or so columns.

Ask the millions of New Yorkers who saw the holes that day if they were "Hollywood". Were you there, by any chance? And what kind of hole should a plane make? Not all the columns were sliced. Some had their bolts sheared and others failed at welds. Now its forget the fuselage? Right like I said the wings are actually built the strongest.

The relatively soft, .050 inch thick aluminum skin supported by various ribs and spars would be no match for these babies.

One was sitting still the other was moving at 500 hundred MPH. See my other vid up there to show how stuff went thru both sides of building like butter.
Thanks for the pics those were cool.

"Various ribs and spars" lol...

reply to post by intrptr


That video is nonsense. You can't just say steel fails at x temperature.

It depends on the size of the steel for one thing. A small steel beam is going to fail long before a massive box columns will. It doesn't account for heat transfer. Just because the fire could have been 800d it doesn't mean the steel will get to that temperature. The odds are against it, the fire was moving leaving steel to cool, it was on fire for less than an hour, thousands of tons of steel would have to have been effected.

How long was that steel in the vid subjected to fire? Less than an hour? Who know what that so called 'wooden beam' actually was?

And again regardless if steel can lose it's shape from heat it doesn't prove, 1. That sagging trusses can create a pulling force on columns. 2. That failed trusses would lead to complete failure of the building.

The question isn't, can heat cause steel to fail, because YES IT CAN. We don't need you to continually show us that, it's pointless. The question is, can sagging trusses when heated up put a pulling force on the columns they're attached to, and can one hour of fire cause enough steel to fail to cause the complete collapse of a 110 story tower, with no obvious signs of resistance from undamaged structure. No loss of Ke from deformation, heat, sound etc.

Steel failing from heat does not mean complete collapse is inevitable. Partial collapse of steel components is what we would expect, ala the Windsor tower, complete collapse is a whole other story.

Until you OS supporters can get your head around the actual arguments, you will continue to misunderstand, and fail in your attempts to prove the OS correct.

reply to post by ANOK

Hey Anok, You should check out septics thread on jumpers. He's a truther just like you. (The "real" truth. right?) I left him and you a nugget there, just for the Pseudo skeptic.

for Anok too...

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, regarding heat transfer and such, dont you recall it also depends on the size of the material's surface area in contact with the material to be cooled? I mean, come now ANOK, I'm sure you must have thought of that at least once.

Through which heat sink will heat transfer through faster: a 1" bolt attacked to a small seat which is tab welded onto a small steel brace, or a large I-beam that is directly welded to a column? Will the heat transfer be quicker in the 1" bolt's surface area or the two large surface areas of the steel I-beams?

You see ANOK, heat sinks rely on how much surface area is in contact with the area that is heated. How much of the heat that is in a truss, can be quickly "sinked" into the surrounding structure via those two 1" bolts, or the 5/8" bolts? Any thought at all?

www.benchtest.com...


Also ANOK, what caused the interior of WTC5 to collapse?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr

 

As a jet passenger I can attest that however sturdy their hulls, they are hollow and were they capable of puncturing hardened targets like missiles, there would be no need for missiles.

Needless to say... being a jet passenger immediately qualifies one to comment on the intricacies of collision dynamics.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
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.

Hi. Thanks for your interest in this thread.
The photographs that show the greyer core above the whiter mushroom suggest the existence of these panels. The whiter powder being mainly the interior drywall office partitions and the lighter concrete floor covering. The grey being mainly the concrete that 'officially' wasn't in the core walls. Striations indicate individual panels or sets of panels. Other photographs taken of the remains show fragments of panels within the beams and columns.

The gravitational collapse theory is regularly backed up with the claim that these were unique buildings. The fiberglass reinforced drywall used for the elevator shafts is an example of first time practices. Why would these panels need to have a precedent?

The photographic evidence that is missing is the record of the drywall being attached to the core walls. There's been plenty of time to fake something convincing, I'm surprised it hasn't turned up yet. If it turns up and it can't be reasonably debunked as fake then all I've uncovered is the ineptitude of an expert witness.

Originally posted by pteridine

Many on this site who want a demolition will believe anything as long as it allows demolition.

.....clouded by your predetermined conclusion......

Nothng moved up; all went out and down. This is what you think was explosive and it was a gravitational collapse.

This is a common mistake which I first heard from a journalist who appeared to have been prepped by her 'sources'. The idea comes from within the mind of the 'debunker' and is transferred by them to the other party. The 'debunker' then carries on as if they have made an accurate statement. Sensible communication is not possible until the 'debunker' acknowledges that the idea of 'wanting a demolition' is their own thought.

A conclusion that took two years work cannot be correctly described as predetermined.

We've covered the false claims based on misunderstanding the stills relating to upward motion of debris. However the dust cloud photographed from the space station belies your statement that "Nothing moved up;..."

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

Many on this site who want a demolition will believe anything as long as it allows demolition.

.....clouded by your predetermined conclusion......

Nothng moved up; all went out and down. This is what you think was explosive and it was a gravitational collapse.

This is a common mistake which I first heard from a journalist who appeared to have been prepped by her 'sources'. The idea comes from within the mind of the 'debunker' and is transferred by them to the other party. The 'debunker' then carries on as if they have made an accurate statement. Sensible communication is not possible until the 'debunker' acknowledges that the idea of 'wanting a demolition' is their own thought.

A conclusion that took two years work cannot be correctly described as predetermined.

We've covered the false claims based on misunderstanding the stills relating to upward motion of debris. However the dust cloud photographed from the space station belies your statement that "Nothing moved up;..."

I agree that the dust cloud did rise. Dust clouds are not diagnostic for demolitions; q.v., dust storms and avalanches. We were speaking of demolition and the common misconception that explosives somehow were used to launch parts into the air.
Apparently, you studied the problem for two years without understanding the characteristics of explosives or the principles of demolition. I would guess that you must have spent about 20 minutes a year at it. Demolition is removal of support followed by gravitational collapse. If things had to be blown UP it would waste a great deal of explosive while increasing collateral damage. This is not a good plan unless the plotters want everyone to see the enormous explosions and break windows for miles around. Forget what you learned from the movies with gasoline-spiked special effect displays.
It seems that the sticking point for you is that you believe the the collapse would need assistance all the way down. You don't believe that once started, that the collapse would self perpetuate. Is this your position?

Originally posted by pteridine

I agree that the dust cloud did rise. Dust clouds are not diagnostic for demolitions; q.v., dust storms and avalanches. We were speaking of demolition and the common misconception that explosives somehow were used to launch parts into the air.
Apparently, you studied the problem for two years without understanding the characteristics of explosives or the principles of demolition. I would guess that you must have spent about 20 minutes a year at it. Demolition is removal of support followed by gravitational collapse. If things had to be blown UP it would waste a great deal of explosive while increasing collateral damage. This is not a good plan unless the plotters want everyone to see the enormous explosions and break windows for miles around. Forget what you learned from the movies with gasoline-spiked special effect displays.
It seems that the sticking point for you is that you believe the the collapse would need assistance all the way down. You don't believe that once started, that the collapse would self perpetuate. Is this your position?

The size of the cloud in proportion the the size of the buildings and its behaviour are useful diagnostic data.

The evidence shows horizontal forces. It is either very sloppy or deliberate misdirection to suggest the curved trails show parts launched upwards. The central parts of the buildings dropped, dragging the dust trails with them giving the illusion the starting point was lower.

I'm sure scale models can reproduce the gravitational collapse. There must be someone in the ranks of the super keen debunkers who can take a break from the keyboard long enough to build such a model. It would be a huge youtube hit.

Originally posted by Kester
The size of the cloud in proportion the the size of the buildings and its behaviour are useful diagnostic data.

The evidence shows horizontal forces. It is either very sloppy or deliberate misdirection to suggest the curved trails show parts launched upwards. The central parts of the buildings dropped, dragging the dust trails with them giving the illusion the starting point was lower.

I'm sure scale models can reproduce the gravitational collapse. There must be someone in the ranks of the super keen debunkers who can take a break from the keyboard long enough to build such a model. It would be a huge youtube hit.

It would be interesting to hear how you would propose to correlate the size of the dust cloud with anything other than the many tons of drywall and concrete floors. Do you have some algorithim that relates the dust cloud size to demolition or somehow defines the size of the cloud based on the size of the building?
The exterior columns moved outward as the connections between them and the core were broken by collapsing floors. This geometry seems difficult for you to understand.
Building a model is pointless. A model is just that and no model will match the real building in every aspect. Because of this, it will only be another source of dispute betwen those that want an 'inside job' and those that see no evidence for such. Computer models of aircraft destroying the steel columns are challenged by those who are technically inept. Challenges by the technically challenged, so to speak.
You may be surprsed to discover that the burden of proof lies with those who challenge the gravitational collapse and claim demolition. Why doesn't someone in the ranks of the super keen demolition theorists take a break from the keyboard long enough to build such a model? So far you have the immensely entertaining Gage 'cardboard box' model as promoted by an architect who apparently has no concept of building construction. I await the Kester 'absolute-proof-of-demolition-smoking-gun-game-over-dude' model.