The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Apparantly as 12m8keall2c says it doesn't, I'm not a civil engineer and don't work with this stuff, so it's a type of wire. Looks similar to what's in those other pictures still though and I'd love to know how anyone can distinguish between that and the wire.
How come some say there was none though? How did the concrete get it's strength then?


None meaning no rebar.

Besides...that pic is clearly from the basement!

Are you really trying to assert that is one of the upper floors? Sure is a small closed in area. I'd say it's some sort of utility area in the basement or something. There wouldn't be brick or concrete walls if was an upper floor.



And why do you ignore this diagram? Do you think it's also a 'hoax"?







posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
No your right it's not, it's one of the NIST labs, where they recreated the floor for tests.


Oh so NIST knows there was rebar in the concrete floors? How so? I thought there were no original plans of the buildings available? So they just assumed, or did they also test without rebar?


Can you? I can't it's so fuzzy you can barely make much out at all. But funnily enough if you imagine looking at the bloke in the NIST photo from the opposite direction, you can see the bar they have going across and what's that mesh type stuff you can faintly see in the back of your photo?


You can see the edge of the pour! Do you see rebar where there is no concrete yet?
Rebar is hard to miss...
Watch the vid I took that still from it's much clearer....
Here



How did the concrete get it's strength then?


It's a concrete floor on top of a metal base, what extra strength would it need?
Do concrete driveways use rebar? No...

[edit on 21/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   


another thermite cut column!







[edit on 21-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Comparing pictures that are obviously below ground level to the upper floors and writing off obvious rebar between the core colums off as electrical conduit!



Uh? Did you not look at the report, the pictures were taken when NIST recreated the floors to carry out tests.. I already said that....


Psssh.

Well whatever then.

NIST tweeked and tweeked ALL of their models to get a pre-determined result.

Obviously they didn't recreate the floor exactly as it was built which would have been impossible.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Where did all the rebar used in the floors go by the way? Can we see it in the pictures? How can we tell which is from the core and which is from the floors?


I don't get those pics, Smith. Without having to open up those massive pdfs, can you tell me what exactly was going on there? That doesn't look like a WTC floor, and I see cinder block in the background.

From what I understand, and what I've seen personally, even from the FEMA Report, the concrete slabs were just laid directly onto the trays laying on the trusses.




posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hahaha howward you make me laugh...

So you give up with your conduit BS huh? Trying to change the subject now with more of your ridiculous attempts at ridicule. How typical of you....



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


another thermite cut column!




Could be. The angle cut columns likely are that's for sure.


Nice way to dodge the discussion since this is the best shot of what is most definitely and obviously rebar and NOT electrical conduit!


Face it howard. You have been proven wrong.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Can you see the ribbing in this electrical conduit?



www.ilsr.org...

Or this?



www.istockphoto.com...

[edit on 21-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Fair enough but do you notice the colour?

The stuff in those pics are the right colour, rust red, to be rebar not conduit.
Rebar rusts, electrical conduit does not....



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Can you see the ribbing in this electrical conduit?



Oh Geez. You are still going there???


Electrical conduit is infinitely more flexible than rebar.

Look at the how the piece is bent in the upper left.

It's rebar.




posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Feel free to PM me and I will be glad to give you Snoonian's e-mail address. She will tell you exactly what she told me about that above refrenced quote


If I were being contradicted by the government, I would assume error and "correct" myself as well. The question is, what lead Snoonian and Czarnecki to those conclusions to begin with? Why were they at first so confident in their paper that the cores were reinforced concrete?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
For comparison, the truss diagonals were 1" thick.

I see a lot of electrical conduit in some of those pictures.


That's funny. Let's compare:

[ats] img131.imageshack.us...[/ats]



That's ignoring why the conduits would in between the core columns in intervals like that, because I don't think they would be.

And I don't think those are electrical conduits.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Could be. The angle cut columns likely are that's for sure.


Have you ever cut down a tree? Same principle....


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Electrical conduit is infinitely more flexible than rebar.


Yes it is, but the thick wires inside arn't.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
If you can't see that that is rebar then you need a new moniter or you need to calibrate it...

[edit on 21/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
You guys are incredible!

It's rusty, it's sticking out between core columns that have traces of concrete stuck to them and tons of pulverized concrete around them.

But nope! No way was there concrete! It's all a big hoax!



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's funny. Let's compare:


If you make it blurry, put it at the same scale and make it the same poor quality it looks pretty similar.
Not forgetting the dust and possibly ash on it of course.




Originally posted by ANOK
It's a concrete floor on top of a metal base, what extra strength would it need?
Do concrete driveways use rebar? No...


Do concrete driveways flex under load and sway in the wind?

[edit on 21-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Floors:

Corrugated, and typically galvanized, steel decking spot-welded to the joists. Wire mesh is layed upon the decking. While pouring the concrete you "lift" the mesh, as you go, to ensure in is IN the concrete to enhance strength and prevent shifting/cracking.

The gauge of the wire mesh is much smaller (1/8" to 1/4") than the rebar used in vertical columns pours.


Thanks for the info, man.




Let's consider the implications of a reinforced concrete core, that supported the majority of gravity loads.

First of all, the cores didn't pancake. So we already know that pancake theory did not apply to the cores. And now it looks like the cores were reinforced concrete too. Aside from claiming the cores were reinforced concrete, I've also seen articles claim that the cores held most of the gravity loads. This makes sense to me, considering that the perimeter columns were mainly designed to handle wind loads. The core had to be non-flexible so that the lateral loads transferred to it via the trusses wouldn't cause the cores to move around (again, reinforced concrete?).


Assuming that the cores did handle the majority of the gravity loads (something we've yet to show of course), what would happen if the perimeter columns and trusses failed on any given floor?

Nothing!

Proving that the cores actually did support that much of the gravity loads would obviously be hard, if not impossible, but if the cores were reinforced concrete, then they look, at least to me, to have been massive enough to handle much more of the gravity loads than the perimeter columns.

Maybe a structural engineer would be able to estimate dimensions, get some psf info (a document posted in another thread may help with this) and be able to give us a rough estimate on how the gravity loads were divided between the core/perimeter? This would be making some assumptions, but would at least give us a rough figure to see if the cores would've held much more than the perimeter columns vertically.

Handling that much of the gravity loads, the failure of most of the perimeter columns and trusses on any given floor wouldn't result in the collapse of anything other than that particular floor. All of the floors above would still have the cores to support them vertically. Pancake collapse could've never happened like this, only a localized collapse, just like skyscrapers are supposed to be built for.

Anyone following? Think it's worth looking into?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Insane.

Master obfuscators.

That's all you guys are. Anything to cloud the truth.

The bent up one in the upper left shows it is solid steel rebar.

Not flexible hollow electrical conduit.



[edit on 21-5-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Uh? I already said - the conduit may be flexible but the cable inside is not so.
Do you think the thick gauge wires they would have going through them are as flexible as the conduit itself? Or where the wires pulled out??
Do you realise even that some conduit used in industrial applications has a woven wire sheath to protect it beneath the plastic/rubber exterior?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Can anyone find a chart of a WTC floor showing where the electrical conduit ran?

I would imagine something exists that would give us a clue. Here's something of WCIP's from a while ago:



If we can find something similar that can clue us in on where the electrical ran, it may help.

It may have run by core columns (although inside the core seems more likely to me), but I seriously doubt that they would have been spaced apart like this:



Wouldn't they have been bundled together instead, to make for easier access later?

The above image looks more like a concrete wall just had the hell blown out of it, and the rebar is laying there.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Smith they look nothing alike...

Have you ever seen rebar in real life? To anybody who has it's obvious that that is rebar, no doubt about it! Everything about the way it look screams rebar.

If it was electrical conduit where are the wires? You would see wire sticking out of them, but no we have rebar with solid ends...

The 'ribbing' is totaly different and that pic is not as blured as you seem to think.

[edit on 21/5/2006 by ANOK]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join