It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Concrete pulverization

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



I have a question for Howard about this picture. Notice the two column walls that are still standing? Notice that they don't have diagonal bracing? How are they still standing then Howard? I thought you needed diagonal bracing for columns to stand? BTW, it looks to me that they are at least 10-15 stories tall.




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The two later photos DO appear to have been taken before clean-up had reached the area.

The other photos are to show portions of the basement levels, which were excavated during clean up.

The whole reason I posted the above was to show images of the basements being excavated, showing mostly smaller debris like rebar, some lower-level lateral bracing from the core to the perimeter, and pulverized concrete. Not to try to capture the whole area.

And I agree, crap was thrown everywhere.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
There was sh*t literally everywhere. It was such a large mess over a 16 acre area.


I think that is the point BSBray is making.

Edit: Beat me to it BSBray

[edit on 11/10/2006 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11



I have a question for Howard about this picture. Notice the two column walls that are still standing? Notice that they don't have diagonal bracing? How are they still standing then Howard? I thought you needed diagonal bracing for columns to stand? BTW, it looks to me that they are at least 10-15 stories tall.


That is because the outer wall is actually a Vierendeel truss formed by the spandrell plates and the columns.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Or because they run into the ground and are held solidly there, just like the core was.

Just becase those columns are braced to each other doesn't mean they shouldn't fall to one side. I think one of those sets is actually leaning up against WTC6.

The other is standing because its support columns are still held solidly to the ground, just as the base of the core was (except the core was MORE solidly connection to the foundations).



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
My point was that Howard says that the core would have buckled without the support of the floors. But, even then, the floors were only horizontal bracing themselves. So why did the structure stand with only horizontal bracing Howard?

I know I'm getting very off topic. Sorry for that Howard.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BigTrain
This is quite comical. A few months ago, BSbray was posting all these posts on "how come the buildings collapsed on their own footprint then?" Now he is trying to justify his position on the fact that the buildings DID NOT collapse onto their own footprint, even posting photos that prove material was ejected outward which proves my point I was making against him a while back.

And your understanding of this situation bsbray is a joke. You keep contradiciting yourself time and time again. How many different scenarios are you going to enbrace until you decide on a definitive cause? At least pick one collapse theory and stick to it, it will make you seem at least more respectable, but as far as im concerned, you have no moral ground to stand on.

BSB flipflops more than Kerry.

Train


In his defense, I have NEVER heard him argue that the towers fell into their footprints. Simetrical yes, but not in their footprints. Care to provide a post that he has said this? But like everything else I ask you to provide, you'll just probably ignore me.

Also, I keep hearing things from you with no proof to back up anything you say. Where's your structural calculations? I've been asking you for these for at least 6 months now.

Also, I guess "staying the course" is a respectable thing to do? Even if you have been proven wrong? Maybe BSBray changes his theory when new evidence comes out. But, I guess going by your thinking, the world is flat?


Griff, your memory is as bad as his. You were in the same thread im talking about when ray always argued that the towers fell faster than gravity and onto there own footprints.

And why would I spend a thousand hours on calculations and models just so you guys can call it disinformation.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Go back and find any post where I say the Twin Towers fell faster than gravity.

Then go back and find any post where you presented thousands of hours of modeling and calculations or whatever you're asserting.


As far as the buildings falling into their footprints, I guess you missed this:


Originally posted by bsbray11
The centers of gravity would have been in the footprints because all of the debris fell around the footprints.

Big Train's problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between center of gravity, and where most of the debris itself actually landed. Hope that clears that up.


Emphasis added so you'd catch that this time.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
And why would I spend a thousand hours on calculations and models just so you guys can call it disinformation.


Because not even the NIST has shown their calculations publically to be peer reviewed. I'd like to see your calculations because maybe it might change my mind. You are assuming that I am married to the explosions theory. I am not.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
My point was that Howard says that the core would have buckled without the support of the floors. But, even then, the floors were only horizontal bracing themselves. So why did the structure stand with only horizontal bracing Howard?

I know I'm getting very off topic. Sorry for that Howard.


The core didn't buckle after the 1993 bombing and the horizontal supports were demolished. In fact, it was explicitly pointed out - kind of as a point of gee-whiz, look at this! And I think we can all agree the basement columns left standing without lateral support in 1993 were under a great deal more load to induce buckling than the core columns on 9/11.





Taken from the appendix of this report:

www.firetactics.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Great find Valhall. If I had another vote this month you'd be getting it. And I'd say that those columns were under exponentially more load than the upper core columns would have been on 9/11.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join