The Steel Down Of 9/11

reply to post by Snakey


Some valid points brought up there....just like page noticed in the south tower collapse for which i took out some frame shots...this one is showing the core basically strpped....i will see if i can poinpoint what colmn it is....but it does look like a corner column....cannot confirm...but will certainly do my bes t to see it it can be....any help from others would be appreciated.



can be seen here...?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by stew4media

 

Almost every high rise building has used the same design as the WTC since the 1960's.

It was not the first, it was not unusual, and it is still the most used design today.

The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and which was completed in Chicago by 1963.[5] This laid the foundations for the tube structural design of many later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.

Evolution of Concrete Skyscrapers: from Ingalls to Jin mao

Again if you bothered to check the Dewitt building is called a tube frame not tuibe in tube like the twin towers, 43 floors REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME and a different floor design from the twin towers.

So NOT the same construction type and not the same material and not the same height

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by stew4media
reply to post by ANOK

 

I have to look up resources. I do recall it saying it was "One" of the first and unique in it's own way of being built.

That was all just part of the OS lies. They tried to claim the buildings were so unique and it was their design that allowed the collapses. I don't think that argument is used too much anymore.

Well the show everyone a link to a 100+ floor steel frame tube in tube design with floor trusses supported like the twin towers?

reply to post by Pagedisciple

It seems your opponents have very little to say in this thread & what little they do say is not exactly meeting with my own experiences in reality. Great job!

Well since you said something.

Some of the steel had 'save' painted on it. So that indicates that there was an after collapse investigation by the experts.
But now we have the backyard engineers crying foul. They claim they know better because.... Well I can't come up with a valid reason why they would know better.
They don't have any degrees in the fields.
They weren't in NYC when it happened.
They didn't examine the evidence first hand.
They didn't speak to any witnesses.
But somehow we should believe them. Next they will be doing bypass operations in their basement.

Your Youtube investigations are worthless. You know not what you are talking about. That's why we have experts with degrees. And all the worlds experts are happy with the explaination.
You should be too. Or get a degree and prove to the world otherwise.

reply to post by plube


So plube lets see you EVEN attempt to work out what the possible DYNAMIC load of even one floorslab falling WOULD BE, YOU GUYS always avoid doing that by coming up with lame excuses for not even trying to WHY!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Is that all you keep going on about....how much of a floor section did collapse....was it an entire floor at once...or was it some...and then some and then some more...you make things up...you keep showing a picture of trusses...yet it is incomplete as none of the dampers have even been connected in the picture your proud of...so go ahead you keep on about something that is not relevant without accurate data as to how much load of one floor collapsed onto a floor below...also i don't agree that the truss seats were the failure so your dynamic loading is false from the start...you keep mocking by using smilely faces in posts which makes your comments childish.

until you show respect to people you reply too...as i said in the beginning....If you do not show respect you will be ignored.

I cannot EDIT my post so I will add here. Although I feel Bazants potential energy calculation is higher than I would like, a more realistic yet conservative calc by Urich is (Total mass of one tower was 288,100 metric tons) would you agree with this?

reply to post by samkent


yes some of them say saved...it is because i am not being selective or misleading in what i am putting forth...Is that the basis of your reply ...because it has been saved therefore experts have looked at it....the experts lied about the trusses system ....so that makes it ok also right...did they mention the cross trusses in the modeling....nope...did they say how the trusses knuckles were embedded in the concrete through the floor pans and do an appropriate testing on the entire system on a reasonable scale....nope.

Lets look..this is NIST looking into frie proofing on the 85th floor of the north tower...so they knew exactly what was there...but did they use this....nope.



see the cross trusses...I do....



do we see the I-beams in core areas..




do we see the knuckle go into the floor pans and into the concrete then come back down..



do we see the dampers ?....that were never mentioned and also never shown in any of the testing.




shall we look on another floor... 14th floor


and lets got to 27th floor...



So as for your experts...you can keep going with them...I will go with my own expertise and knowledge thanks...I am not lying here..i am presenting what is fact...not making it up...as you can see with your own eyes....the choice is yours to keep believing even though it has been shown they have not been truthful or forthcoming with info...NIST had these images back in...the early 1990's yet it is very deceitful that they did not use the KNOWN construction to represent their testing....They are amazing experts.

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14


Kudos to your efforts...i really appreciate it.....I would say it is much more accurate to the real mass..do you have a link to it....that would also be appreciated but i am sure i will find it and have a look at it...cheers for your efforts.

It is my sincere pleasure to have brought this curiosity to you & our fellow researchers attention. I have also noticed the "upward projectiles" in a few videos,..I DO regret you not getting regular sleep from all the extra work I now know you're going to do. Take a break & look at a tree for at least one day mate, I beg ya.

BTW, speaking of sleepless nights,.. there is another video I've been dying to bring up since I saw it months ago. My apologies for only joining recently. I'm sure it's old hat,.. but you never know right? I was wrong once. I like being wrong sometimes, it helps me learn to not be wrong the next time -- if I pay attention.

So it's of course on youtube & it's titled "WTC Tower 2 Avalanche, stabilized slow motion." by user-channel WTC911demolition.
I would link it of course but I am a newbie here & some of the functions of posting here seem a bit strange to one more used to analyzing audio.

...IN this video, to my eyes, there is a piece of the building that is racing ahead of the rest of the debris, starting at 0:18 into it & going until 0:25. I know David Chandler has done some observations about "projectiles," some even moving in more than one direction & moving suddenly at near-right angles.

I've wondered if anybody with the proper analytical skills, whom understands camera perspectives/depth of field type stuff & how shots are lined up,.. could look at the videos frame by frame & clock how long it would take things falling normally via gravity in those same spaces/shots/videos & how they would naturally react in those same shots VS what we are seeing here, 18 seconds into, "WTC Tower 2 Avalanche, stabilized slow motion.", where some pieces obviously get the jump on the other pieces to the bottom. It's like some of the pieces of the building are raining down with extra speed like missiles.

I find it funny that our detractors who would say that WTC7 fell because the Towers fell onto it, gutting a portion of it thus helping its demise ALWAYS FAIL TO EXPLAIN how their, "gravity driven collapse" would be capable of hurling huge pieces of steel at and into WTC7, which was how far away? What was it, I'm sure you remember,.. something like MORE THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD'S LENGTH AWAY from the twin towers if my memory serves me close at all?!?

We're to keep a straight face when they say gravity helped pieces of steel weighing several tons each, to FLY LATERALLY, FAR ENOUGH (geez, I can barely type this without wincing) to cause damage enough to gut out a significant portion of the WTC7, another steel framed concrete building, that, funnily enough we've never really seen photographic proof of this gutting (that one smokey picture you guys keep posting -- stop it -- IT'S TIRED GUYS! GET OFF IT, IT SUCKS, YOU CAN'T SEE DUFF-ALL IN IT),.. although that snake from Popular Mechanics said he's "seen the pictures" that the rest of us haven't been privy to & we should just trust him, cuz, hey, he only works for Hearst Publishing & they've NEVER EVER lied to anyone in the past have they? (for those not in the know, look up the term, "yellow journalism."

Thank you again for the new love-hate thing going on here, I swear I'm trying to move into love-love but some people make it very difficult.

Cheers to you, yours & ours Sir Plube

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

well it could be that the witness making this statement is more the scenario...Of course though witness accounts cannot be relied upon though can they..

To some extent you are correct...but then again William Rodriguez helped rescue a severely burned man who was in the elevator. I forget the fellow's name but I don't care enough to look him up- he was a very real person who was in a very real elevator and sustained very real burn injuries. It wasn't explosives since this guy would have been disintergrated, and it wasn't super-duper thermite since the stuff burns so slowly it wouldn't have created the shock wave necessary to push the elevator down into the basement (where Rodriguez found him).

There's only so much you can deviate from Rodriguez' statements before you begin to contradict the historical record, you know.

"...Dan Baumbach, a software engineer who lives in Merrick, had an 80th-floor office at One World Trade Center, where he saw the flying debris and knew it was time to move.

"But heading down the stairs, he and four other co-workers suddenly came upon 100 others, who were told by a building official, "We'll get you out; be calm, just stay here."

""There was no way we were going to stay there," said Baumbach, 24, who was then warned: "You can try it, but it's at your own risk."

"Many stayed. Baumbach did not.

"At 10-story intervals, he had to walk through burning corridors. Bizarrely, no sprinklers or alarms had been activated. ...."

[ 10-story intervals? other facts on this page seem garbled, maybe this one is as well.... ]

This is what I find so disingenuous about the truther movement- someone makes an off the cuff remark and the truthers take it at near anal-retentive literal face value specifically so they can use it to drp innuendo of impropriety. That guy was giving an off the top of his head estimate, nothing more. All he's saying is that he went down every few stairs and saw another fire. He didn't pull out a diary and a measuring tape and jotted down every square inch of what he saw while running for his life to determine it was exactly every ten floors for the benefit of the conspiracy theorists. You know better than that.

I met one woman who worked in the south tower, and she told me that while she was escaping down the stairs it sounded like (in her own words) " giant boulders were crashing down the stairs after her". If you don't believe anything else I say, then at least believe this: these supposed sinister secret agents didn't lug boulders up to the top of the building to let them roll down the stairwells.

So dave do you really want to keep using this man...I would think you might want to rethink your stance when you keep talking about the lift shaft fires.

I am unable to listen to video on the computer I'm using right now, but it really doesn't matter since I am quoting William Rodriguez' statement during the NIST public meeting in NYC in 2004:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

If you want to call it "hot gasses", or "superheated shock wave" instead of "fireballs", be my guest, but something still came down the elevator and it still caused further damage elsewhere in the building that may never be fully documented. You're simply trying to exaggerate the point to make this all sound more spooky-scary than it really needs to be.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Pagedisciple

 

It seems your opponents have very little to say in this thread & what little they do say is not exactly meeting with my own experiences in reality. Great job!

Well since you said something.

Some of the steel had 'save' painted on it. So that indicates that there was an after collapse investigation by the experts.
But now we have the backyard engineers crying foul. They claim they know better because.... Well I can't come up with a valid reason why they would know better.
They don't have any degrees in the fields.
They weren't in NYC when it happened.
They didn't examine the evidence first hand.
They didn't speak to any witnesses.
But somehow we should believe them. Next they will be doing bypass operations in their basement.

Your Youtube investigations are worthless. You know not what you are talking about. That's why we have experts with degrees. And all the worlds experts are happy with the explaination.
You should be too. Or get a degree and prove to the world otherwise.

& so it begins,...You know Sam, I'm pretty sure I don't care for your tone here, you could really do without the self aggrandizement of your ilk. And your palpable vitriol & spite is especially tangible in your last paragraph. I notice the attempt at planting a feeling of apathy for people such as myself. I love to burst your bubble with my enthusiasm & ebullient nature. And I DO I wonder if you may have violated any terms or conditions here? I've noticed the mods are not too keen on name calling around here & just be warned, "backyard engineers" sounds completely like unnecessary venom without helping the discussion.. Really? All 1600 members of Ae911truth are "backyard engineers? or, I can hear you're next comment already, "nut-cases?" All 1600 of them huh? How about they are the only 1600 with the guts to say,.."hey, wait a second, somethin's happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear".... I'll be watching you & your buddies & learning how to notify the mods of any unruly/disruptive behavior you might contribute that is not conducive to constructive discourse..

& Scientists have never lied to suit political interests? Really? Oh and, "all the worlds experts are happy with the explanation." (of the OS),.. REALLY? Wow, because I could have sworn I saw sat least 1600 people, from only one organization, whom have credentials that read like a sterling resume, whom have very serious questions about your beloved "case closed -- nothing to see here folks, move along" investigation. Which one of those are you referring to exactly? The one that's own participants have called a sham? (whispering -- "911 commission")

I have a degree in music because I have something else to prove & help with, but my fellow researchers here whom I trust & see as far more credentialed than anything you've offered of yourself or ANY of your brood. & we will keep up the good fight sir, I'm sure you've noticed we don't tire easily. Call it a passion for justice & the American way or at least let us see ALL the evidence that's wrapped away for national security (coughs) reasons.

Why am I a backyard engineer who writes paragraphs, to express myself with a pretty good grasp of the language & you, the expert come here to spit poison at us with a total of 13 lines? Just an observation, I hope you don't mind?


I'm onto guys like you like stink on rice.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Fire, heat, and fire balls travel up, not down. Maybe a piece of fiery debris came down the elevator shaft and went through the roof of the elevator, or caught the elevator on fire. But you will never be able to get fire or a fireball to travel down.

What happens when you take a torch or a flame thrower and point them down? The end of the flame starts curling back up.

I'm not certain whether that really matters. *Something* came down this one elevator shaft from the impact area to force it down into the basement, and whatever the *something* was, it was hot enough to severely burn the occupant. Otherwise, William Rodriguez' entire statement is fraudulent,

Call it a "fireball" or call it "mysterious force X", as the difference is largely nitpicking, but we still need to agree that the end result is still the same- when the plane hit the building, additional things happened to the building that we cannot possibly know. Just because there are still gaps in our knowledge it doesn't give you license to fill in the blanks with abject paranoia and then pass them off as fact.

Originally posted by plube

As we can see it was systematic and quick for the disposal of the evidence....good thing we have video evidence available to us to go through everything....I will start to show plans and locations of steel soon...it is a lot of work to go through....but worth the effort.

Thsi is flawed logic. You're showing yourself that there are photographs on top of photographs tucked in between other photographs that fully document what the steel looked like as it was picked up off the ground at ground zero, and yet you're saying this is "systematic disposal of the evidence". For one thing, you can see right away that throughout all these photos, not a single one shows any sign of sabotage from explosives, and for another, "systematic disposal of the evidence" ALSO includes the systematic disposal of all these photographs you're claiming shows impropriety. If you're going to murder somebody you don't take a photo of the body and then release it to the public, you know.

You're simply seeing what you yourself want to see, here.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Fire, heat, and fire balls travel up, not down. Maybe a piece of fiery debris came down the elevator shaft and went through the roof of the elevator, or caught the elevator on fire. But you will never be able to get fire or a fireball to travel down.

What happens when you take a torch or a flame thrower and point them down? The end of the flame starts curling back up.

I'm not certain whether that really matters. *Something* came down this one elevator shaft from the impact area to force it down into the basement, and whatever the *something* was, it was hot enough to severely burn the occupant. Otherwise, William Rodriguez' entire statement is fraudulent,

Call it a "fireball" or call it "mysterious force X", as the difference is largely nitpicking, but we still need to agree that the end result is still the same- when the plane hit the building, additional things happened to the building that we cannot possibly know. Just because there are still gaps in our knowledge it doesn't give you license to fill in the blanks with abject paranoia and then pass them off as fact.

Careful "Dave", you're starting to sound like one of us who has questions.

Although, you DO speak an awful lot about lasers from space & nefarious (or was it sinister?) spooks.
& now "mysterious force X." You guys used to give 2 $#^s & at least try man, c'mon, really?

"Just because there are still gaps in our knowledge it doesn't give you license to fill in the blanks with abject paranoia and then pass them off as fact." Take that same statement coming from your opponents & substitute "resigned belief" instead of "abject paranoia" and I think the shoe seems to fit you fairly well fellow questioner.

Would you like a pair in in black or grey?

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Pagedisciple

 

We're to keep a straight face when they say gravity helped pieces of steel weighing several tons each, to FLY LATERALLY, FAR ENOUGH (geez, I can barely type this without wincing) to cause damage enough to gut out a significant portion of the WTC7, another steel framed concrete building, that, funnily enough we've never really seen photographic proof of this gutting

Apparently there was a piece of steel weighing 300 tons that docked some 100 meters away. Then again, the Inertia that could collapse the towers to rubble in 15 seconds could also make parts of the frame fly under compresion. I don't see any contradiction in such a scenario.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I am not sure what i am making up...it is being told by the same witness you showed...NOT ME....i just went and did some digging into what you had presented...so how is that a truther deception in any way shape or form.....you can get into the semantics about tape measure and such....but it is his witness account...It seems ok that you can put forward witness accounts ...yet when i show what he is saying...then it becomes a truther thang....So if you look at the account...Rodriquez get a second hand account of what happened to this guy..

so lets look at the statement you supplied ok....I will look at it reasonably here and you tell me where it have lost the plot....lets try this.

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment.into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

i see he is in the basement...as he says in the vid i showed.....

a guy comes running to him ..... A person comes running
so far ok...nothing wrong with that

the lift drops ....It went down, I think seven flights.

so It drops....elevators have a mechanical emergency stop ....so this drops 7 floors(a guess as stated by witness)

then not only that the cables apparently snapped...then the lift doors open also....then the person makes it to Rodriquez to relay his story...also the person standing in front of the lift doors practically got his skin vapourized...is this from the falling heat...I ask you ...do you not question things....I mean all this could be true...but heat rises....the volume of fuel that would be needed to travel down 1000' of shaft would be a great amount would it not....also this would have been within how long from the planes hitting..Do these not seem strange to yourself.

I am sorry but i do questions things...must be in my nature.

It must be because of my degrees that i don't just accept things...but i think it is more to do with common sense...I don't believe a person with degrees has any more ability to question things than a person without any degrees....I think you should question things first before you present things.

Originally posted by Snakey

Originally posted by Pagedisciple

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Pagedisciple

 

We're to keep a straight face when they say gravity helped pieces of steel weighing several tons each, to FLY LATERALLY, FAR ENOUGH (geez, I can barely type this without wincing) to cause damage enough to gut out a significant portion of the WTC7, another steel framed concrete building, that, funnily enough we've never really seen photographic proof of this gutting

Apparently there was a piece of steel weighing 300 tons that docked some 100 meters away. Then again, the Inertia that could collapse the towers to rubble in 15 seconds could also make parts of the frame fly under compresion. I don't see any contradiction in such a scenario.

Okay, more than 300 feet away for a 300 ton piece of steel. The "inertia?" (inertia here is defined as
"A property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force"),... "uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force" A straight line, unless external force,.... how are lateral ejections of over 300 feet, of beams weighing 300 tons, dislodged from this straight line? What was the "external force"?

A 300 ton piece of steel flies 300 feet from where it used to be & you really think gravity alone explains this?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning & I would like to.,.. PLEASE show me ANY other instance of a gravity driven collapse causing steel members to fly laterally for over a hundred meters... I would LOVE to believe in any OS that made sense to me, I really would. But I've not seen it yet & this explanation does little to disprove my own experiences with gravity.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Pagedisciple
Careful "Dave", you're starting to sound like one of us who has questions.

Although, you DO speak an awful lot about lasers from space & nefarious (or was it sinister?) spooks.
& now "mysterious force X." You guys used to give 2 $#^s & at least try man, c'mon, really?

There's a difference between acknowledging there are gaps in our understanding that we don't know and we probably won't ever know, and trying to fill in the gaps with abject paranoia to make everything sound spooky-scary to the uninformed. You have to know it isn't me who's bringing up "lasers from outer space", "no planes", "faked crash sites", or whatever. It's your fellow conspiracy theorists here. All I'm doing is pointing out how the multitude of "absolute truths behind the 9/11 attack" is de facto proof that you're all seeing what you yourselves want to see here.

Otherwise, how is it that three people can see the exact same evidence and yet they come up with three completely different and contradictory conclusions?

"Just because there are still gaps in our knowledge it doesn't give you license to fill in the blanks with abject paranoia and then pass them off as fact." Take that same statement coming from your opponents & substitute "resigned belief" instead of "abject paranoia" and I think the shoe seems to fit you fairly well fellow questioner.

I can agree with this, to some extent, but you don't understand...or refuse to understand...why that is. The towers stood for over 30 years without incident until they were whacked by several planes, after which they collapsed in an hour. Even to anyone remotely disinterested in the events of 9/11, it still necessarily means there had to be some sort of correlation between the "whacking" and the "collapsing". The question isn't why I don't care to calculate out what happened to every nut, bolt and door hinge to determine why "whacking" led to "collapsing". The question is why the conspiracy theorists always try to go out of their way to fill in the blanks between "whacking" and "collapsing" with their own choice explanations when they aren't even necessary.

Cough cough (nukes in the basement) cough.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


yes i can say thisAs we can see it was systematic and quick for the disposal of the evidence....good thing we have video evidence available to us to go through everything....I will start to show plans and locations of steel soon...it is a lot of work to go through....but worth the effort....this is all within three months of the incident...the steel had to be moved off site first did it not..I can fully say this without fail...The investigation by NIST had not even really begun at this point....A paper by Bazant(the first one had already come out within 48hrs of the collapses)...so yes...it was very systematic...I am sure if they could have got rid of this material the very first day they would have....so can you show that it was not done deliberately what harm was it doing sitting there while investigations took place...none.

but enough of trying to derail the thread....I am doing more work and will get back shortly....enjoy the discussions...because there is more coming...the more people actually see how much they have been deceived the more they will come to understand the way the structures were built...the materials involved...then they will know the way they were shown to be these weak toothpick type structures is false the further they will push for truth.

have you acknowledged any of the points in here...nope...also you start a thread with a single pic of a chunk of steel at the smithsonian and you state more lies of the conspiracy theorists...and you feel that is sufficient....i think the work i am putting in here speaks for itself...i am focusing on the issue of the steel....so far from the crash zones are we seeing buckled burnt steel?

guess what....Not so far....so where did the fires cause such global damage that the towers lost strength and collapsed....so far from all the steel shots we are not seeing this deformation are we.