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.

 

FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

by Swampfox46_1999[/url]


You are actually comparing stairwells to core supports? Why? Stairwells were drywalled in several plies held up by less dense steel beams. They had nothing to do with the core supports. The core supports surrounded everything placed inside the core. They were not holding up drywall on the stairwell walls.




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
You are actually comparing stairwells to core supports? Why? Stairwells were drywalled in several plies held up by less dense steel beams. They had nothing to do with the core supports. The core supports surrounded everything placed inside the core. They were not holding up drywall on the stairwell walls.

The stairwells were within the area of core columns. It's a reasonable observation that if multiple stairwells were destroyed then the core columns suffered also to an unknown extent.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Please read what you wrote - "within the areas" - as in surrounded by. but drywall was not hung on the core supports. Therefore, the core supports had nothing to do with drywall and what it hung on doing any collapsing. Are your referring to drywall collapsing, or the drywall and on what they hung the drywall, which were not core supports?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Ah yes, the inevitable "ive lived in the real world longer than you" atittude.




Could it be that those of us actually living in the physical world have spent our entire lives, observing and learning from the physical in which we have resided, some us far longer than others?


Nope.




From whom or where did you get that 30% data? From some hearsay report(s)? Or were you in the buildings examining and calculating all that, from up close and personal examination, before the buildings collapsed?


From examination of the evidence.




I agree with others you are wrong.


And after reading some of your posts, this bothers me not a bit.




There is no factual evidence of what you are stating from NIST or anyone else.


See what I mean?




You are actually comparing stairwells to core supports?


No, I am saying that the stairwells were within the cores. In other words, if you are going to damage the stairwells to the point they are impassible....you are going to have to go through some of the core supports.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
Can't imagine how I could make it any clearer than that.
The stairwells were within the core IE surrounded by core columns on at least 3 sides. Whether the stairs structure or the supporting battens for the sheetrock lining were attached to core columns or not really doesn't matter here. For multiple staircase structures to be destroyed by a force applied from one direction, the force would have to at least pass between the core columns if not clean through them but I was careful to state that the level of damage to anything but the staircases is an unknown.

Seems a crazy point to get hung up on - is anyone claiming the stairs were not rendered unusable?
IE only one stairwell out of 6 survived.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


reply to post by Pilgrum
 


At least 3 sides? Try four like any other square or rectangular stable building with exterior and interior walls.

There was no drywall in the stairwells hung on core supports. What you keep saying is you do not have a clue how the twin towers were constructed, including the stairwells being walled off inside the rest of the core shaft, along with rest rooms, utilities rooms, etc. and also held the elevator shafts. All inside the core area on every floor. Surrounded by means surrounded by and nothing more.

Exactly how many core supports and where do you think they placed in both towers?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
You're drifting off the point again

Which is:
How could so many stairwells (5 out of 6) be rendered unusable without the core columns taking some damage at the same time?

I'm open to any credible explanation of how that could happen differently.

Note again: I'm in no way specifying how much damage - it's an unknown



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


There were steel framed areas inside the center core. On those steel frames hung drywall separating out all those areas of stairwells, rest rooms, and other purposeful rooms for whatever they choose to use them. Then there was the steel framing of the elevator shafts insdie the cores as well.

Have you ever taken the time to actually study the construction of the WTC towers or any high rise or commercial building with more than one floor? Have you ever seen any high rise going up during construction?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
Yes I have looked at the construction details

All these steel framed drywall enclosed areas would have to be knocked out by something for all the stairwells to be rendered useless is the point. The core columns had to experience that same 'something' for that to happen.

You seem to be hinting that the firestairs were freestanding over the entire height of the buildings with no attachment to the core structure which is somewhat hard to believe but it isn't really relative to the core experiencing the same force that destroyed those stairways at the impacted levels.

I don't see how this can be a point of argument unless you have evidence the firestairs were not damaged as reported.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


First, someone would have to report exactly what they meant. Then someone would have to go examine it to know exactly what was reported. All we have is hearsay from other people. Exactly what was the damage done, and when (time) and where was it done? What was the reason in the report given for any collapse, and how exactly did they describe it? Who was still alive to testify that is exactly what happened? Anyone?

If they had not been placing all that other steel framing inside the cores throughout construction, there would have been nothing but a monsterous hole at the center 133' x 87' in both towers.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The stairwells were within the area of core columns. It's a reasonable observation that if multiple stairwells were destroyed then the core columns suffered also to an unknown extent.


Not reasonable at all, the stairs were not like the columns at all. The stairs would have been exposed between the columns and made from far lighter thinner metal.

Talking about stairwells, why were so many doors to the stairwells locked?


"At 8:45 a.m., Walter Lipiak had just unlocked the door to Cosmos Service America on the 89th floor of the north tower. . . he gathered them up and herded them toward the stairwell, which was locked. Police arrived, unlocked the exit, and Lipiak's people joined what would become a throng on the route down.


"87th floor of One World Trade Center...They began an odyssey down the crowded stairwell. At one point, they had go back upstairs to reach another stairwell because they couldn't get past a locked steel door."



"Anyway, in the story, Andruzzi says: "We get to the fourth floor, and the door out of the stairwell to the lobby is locked."..."



"...Pushing frantically on the locked stairwell doors of the World Trade Center, Frank Joseph Doyle made a call to his wife, telling her that he and others were trapped and she should dial 911...


Were the people on the upper floors who may have witnessed the actual 'aircraft' crash not supposed to get out?

Interesting also a water pipe apparently burst flooding offices, and stairwells, with water. Now how big were these fires again? Nice cooling water pouring on all that red hot steel...LOL You should have seen the steam...



""Eventually, as we got closer, to about the 16th floor, it started to move. The last six floors, there was water pouring down the stairwells. We got to the mezzanine and had to walk down the escalators from there to the main lobby, which had 6 to 8 inches of water...
..."It struck Heineman afterward that everything would have been worse an hour later. The offices, like his own, would have been filled. The stairways would have been impassable...."



"When Baumbach and the knot of people behind him made it to ground level, they could not go through the doors because of the smoldering debris that was crashing down. They were sent down a stopped escalator to the underground Plaza Level and the WTC mall and that's where - an hour into their frantic flight - they found themselves wading through pitch black surroundings in a foot of water:..."


Bolding by me. Sry was I off topic?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Each tower had three stairwells within the core structure. In one tower, all three stairwells were damaged to the point where people above that section could not get down, the other tower two stairwells were damaged to the point of impassability. Sorry, but that just does not happen WITHOUT damage being caused to the core. I know you wont accept that


Well you're wrong. I have no problem accepting that damage was done to the core structure. Damage was also done to the perimeter structure. It just wasn't much, at least if you want to try to make the whole thing fall in on itself. It doesn't matter how many stairwells were compromised, because stairwells don't hold up buildings. Stairwells exist in between columns. If you want to talk about damage to the actual core columns, then we can do that, too. But it's still about the same as what happened to the perimeter columns on those floors, ie not much over all.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


From what you are describing, you obviously missed something in the reading. The core supports had nothing to stairwells or rooms sitting inside the core supports or elevator shafts. If the other steel framing, inside the core units was damaged, that had no effect on the core supports. That vertical steel framing was autonomous from the center core supports. That is exactly what I have been explaining through at least 3 posts now.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
One other fact people may have missed in the construction of the towers. Many tons of dense, heavy steel hat trusses from the 107th - 110th floor stabilized and connected the center core and perimeter walls, plus, supported the tons of weight from the antenna on WTC 1.

Even if any part of any horizontal support, to which the continuous core supports were connected, along with that skeleton steel frame inside the core unit, were compromised in any particular area of any floor, the core units would still have been standing. They were held firm at the bottom, top and throughout every floor existing in both twin towers. A few (2-4 on one side) of the floor trusses could have been compromised, and load would have shifted and stablized as it was designed to do.

There was no sign any floor truss was compromised before the buildings fell. Yes, it would be seen in building movement if losing any part of the floors prior to collapse. There was no movement indicating that.

There is no way any jet fuel and/or any Boeing 767s brought down those buildings the way they fell. It is impossible, by all laws of nature, considering the alleged circumstances reported.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Not reasonable at all, the stairs were not like the columns at all. The stairs would have been exposed between the columns and made from far lighter thinner metal.

I have to take such care to avoid the remotest possibility of suggesting any extra damage being done to the wrong component but I occasionally slip up

However, you have summed up what I was getting at - the firestairs were thinner but for them to be damaged that force had to get past the core columns which would involve removal of some walls (actually more than some) but I won't suggest that the rust on the core columns was even scratched in this process.

The locked stairwell doors is an alarming aspect alright
I'm sitting here in on the secure upper floor of a highrise and the firestairs can be accessed from any floor but once inside the stairwell, to exit at any point other than the bottom I need to swipe a valid passcard past the card reader. The bottom door is only locked from the outside and can always be opened from inside although, at the wrong hour of the day, it will cause a security alarm. So I wonder if they were trying to exit at a point above the intended exit because that could happen to me right here right now too if I fled without grabbing the 'all floors' pass card first.

Tis indeed hard to stay on topic round here - I see this thread actually deals with molten steel. I'm getting used to being whisked off into spectrographic analysis of paperclips when I least expect it



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


The stairways were attached to the inside width, of the core not the length. If anything was compromised for support inside core support, it would be the autonomous steel framing inside the core unit, and not attached to any core supports vertically running the full length and end widths of the interior core unit.

The stairs were attached to that steel, not the steel of the core supports. They were attached through all those plies of drywall, lining the stairwells, at the automous skeletal steel framing running thoughout the inside of the center core supports.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Swampfox....and others.

I'd like to ask what your thoughts on this are?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Worlds largest supercollider could destroy the universe"



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



More human arrogance?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Back to the subject of this discussion. I located this information on FEMA's false claims, and why they are false claims, including WTC 7. There can be no forensic investigation when all necessary physical evidence is immediately shipped to China and India for recycling. Therefore, anything FEMA says is not accurate or true, and FEMA cannot prove it is:

911review.com...

"FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel would be removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA pretended to investigate the collapses by assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 1

FEMA's so-called investigation had the features of a complete farce:

No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.

Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.

They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.

They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.

They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).

Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed."



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
You drive a hard bargain
Attached directly or indirectly, vertically or horizontally, still amounts to being *attached* but I'm considering getting my solicitor to give this the once over just in case

In the context of what I'm getting at the attachment factor isn't really relevant and all that matters is the fact that the stairwells were amongst the core columns and there were several of them in different locations. So whatever force instantaneously destroyed the stairwells was also applied to the core columns, unless it was polite enough to go around them instead.




top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join