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: 21
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

The belly of each floor was not just trusses spaced apart. There was other steel running adjacent to the trusses also supporting the floors. That is something NIST never mentioned to anyone.


What are you referring to here? Are you referring to the corrugated metal floor pans that the concrete was poured over? This is mentioned in NIST, and included in the floor/fire tests.

Or is there something else?




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, actually WTC7 was hit by quite a few pieces of debris, including (at least according to FDNY members, several large columns of WTC1). My explanation (okay, best guess just like everyone else) heavy damage, combined with uncontrolled fires brought the building down.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I am not referring to rebar. I am referring to other steel under the floors beyond the trusses. Please note the words joists and trusses in the excerpt below. They were running in two different directions to the core unit, particularly in the corners with no vertical supports and no core for which to attach any trusses in that area. They ran a grid style steel underflooring the full length and width on each side of the buildings. Hence, the term redundantly steel built:

911research.wtc7.net...

It appears charges were staggered every few columns. This is because of the behavior of the clouds being expelled. The columns of floor 97 were acting as a "comb". Clouds were not evenly being expelled every column, but every few columns. It appears that charges were placed inside the building where the floor joists and trusses connected to the perimeter wall.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If WTC 7 was damaged as badly as you assert, it should have started collapsing on its own hours before it did. Don't you believe Larry Silverstein when he stated to the public WTC 7 was pulled? He tried to blame it on the fire department, which never happened by fire department decision or detonation. He had pros pull WTC 7. They are the only ones qualified to do so. It is not any department's job to demolish buildings by controlled demolition.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
And once again, you try to read way too much into something he said. There is no way in Hades that someone went into WTC7 to wire it for demolition that day. Watch enough and read enough interviews with the firemen there and the majority of them will use the word "pull" in regards to being pulled from the immeadiate area of the building.

Why it stood for so long before collapsing? Different construction than the towers, damaged differently, probably dozens of reasons why...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Watch enough and read enough interviews with the firemen there and the majority of them will use the word "pull" in regards to being pulled from the immeadiate area of the building.


Do they use "pull it" when describing themselves?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I know that. As I explained several times before in several posts, they began in the late 20th century pre-wiring for the day buildings are brought down, and that area used for whatever purposes developers decide to use it. Nothing wrong with doing pre-wiring for the future. It is legal and not lethal if done right.

They do it during construction when electricians are already there for the rest of the electric. CD experts may show up for pre-drilliing or give instructions on what size and where they want the holes for future use and capped off bare wires. The experts will have a blue print they keep for future use. They may pre-contract years in advance or not, and the owner(s) would have the same diagram in case another company has to carry out the demolition.

They may do it all before interior covering is attached - if they are going to be covered (uncovered in elevator shafts). It saves time and cost, particularly in areas where the average life of a high rise may be 30 years or less.

They built Jacob's stadium in Cleveland less than 30 years ago on the backs of taxpayers. They are already planning on tearing it down to build a new one on taxpayers' backs again. They will use controlled demolition pull the current stadium to demolish it. That is a given.

The only building eventually privately owned in the WTC complex was Building 7, but it was paid for by the taxpayers. The rest was owned by the taxpayers through the Port Authority.

If the buildings were pre-wired, the Port Authority would know, as would Larry Silverstein, who told the public WTC 7 was pulled. Pre-wiring was the only way it could have been pulled. That would be done long before 9/11/2001. That is a self-evident truth.

If done after construction, it would definitely be noticed by someone, particularly elevator repair people. They would not be so inclined to notice if done when constructed. The wiring has to be run on the outside of the steel. If not done under construction, they may not attach it securely to the side of the steel, as should be done, to keep it from getting caught on elevators when loosely run. The wiring would be secured to the inside of beams away from elevators.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Where do you get this idea that they drill a bunch of holes and wire a building up for demolition DURING construction? Thats the most insane thing Ive heard. And it doesnt change my point that there was no way anyone was going to go into WTC7 to prep it for demolition. Unless you plan on claiming that the charges were also placed during construction.

Griff, does it really matter if they said "it" or "us"? Applying strict grammar to people talking during a crisis or about a crisis leads to assumption. Witness how everybody jumps all over Bush saying he saw that a plane had hit the first tower.......I mean the man was talking about how he had seen the story, but people assume he meant that he actually saw the plane hit........



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Because when imploding a building (pull it), they have to put the demolitions inside the steel at 45 degree angle, to completely slice the steel. They even have a tool that makes a 45 degree angle in the steel for CD experts.

The top section easily slides off the bottom. Gravity does the rest, for felling a building in its own footprint, as long as it is symmetically cut at every strategic level or DEW used. No pre-wiring necessary with DEW.

Legal controlled demolitions can be used to deliberately pancake topple a building or implode it down into its own footprints. Depends on how much room they have, and what they want to salvage from demolished buildings.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I just said it is cost effective at construction time. I read it in an engineering magazine posted to the Internet. That article was saved in "My Favorites". I discovered when I went to look for it, the website was gone. That has happened a great deal with websites I saved, when articles can be used to support controlled demolitions on 9/11/2001.

Do you have a problem with the fact they legally pre-wire the buildings, particularly in NYC? If so, what is it? There is no safety issue involved as long as nothing else is pre-set. They do not even have to hook up the electric at the junction box until they are going to use it.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


When was the last time you referred to a human being, including yourself, as "it"? And in what respect did you do that?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

I am not referring to rebar. I am referring to other steel under the floors beyond the trusses. Please note the words joists and trusses in the excerpt below. They were running in two different directions to the core unit, particularly in the corners with no vertical supports and no core for which to attach any trusses in that area. They ran a grid style steel underflooring the full length and width on each side of the buildings. Hence, the term redundantly steel built:



www.debunking911.com...

Can you point out or explain what you're referring to in this diagram?

www.debunking911.com...

Or perhaps you prefer this photo?

Or perhaps you're talking about the corners only?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, actually WTC7 was hit by quite a few pieces of debris, including (at least according to FDNY members, several large columns of WTC1). My explanation (okay, best guess just like everyone else) heavy damage, combined with uncontrolled fires brought the building down.


That's not really what I was asking for. I mean some kind of theory like the pancake stuff FEMA suggested for the towers. What drops all the columns and floors simultaneously and folds it into a stack on its own footprint?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I did not refer to a diagram or that photo. The photo is the individual sections of tube framing of the perimeter primary load bearing walls, to which I did not refer, and the excerpt briefly touched on those discussing to what joists and trusses were attached under the flooring and where. The other is someone's hand drawn rendering which is incorrect for completion.

I was referreing to the entire floor area of flooring surrounding the cores at each level. If people know construction, they know there has to be support at the corners. Or their building will be partially collapsing at the second floor corner areas, before concrete is even poured, without redundant suspended animation support in those areas and under the rest of the flooring.

There was no vertical support under any flooring areas, save for the interior walls. That left a great deal of unsupported vertical floor space between interior walls.

It should be easy to figure out how they supported the corner areas the same way throughout all the flooring, without vertical support, after running out of center core in the corner areas. The building was approximately 204' x 204'. The core was approximately 133' x 87'.

It was not simply trusses attached from the perimeter walls to the core until core length and width ran out at all 4 corners. The length of the core left approximately 59' x 204' feet of floor space just on the length side of 133'. That means approximately 59' x 35' at each corner would be left with no support if not grid supported corner to corner on each floor side of the building.

Trusses alone would not have held the flloors in place under any circumstances. Did you note the approximately gauge of the trusses? It was not that dense. That meant, in those buildings, making the floors redundant steel grids. Trusses running one way. Joists running the other way, and both attaching to the perimeter walls. The trusses only attached to the cores.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

I am not referring to rebar. I am referring to other steel under the floors beyond the trusses. Please note the words joists and trusses in the excerpt below. They were running in two different directions to the core unit, particularly in the corners with no vertical supports and no core for which to attach any trusses in that area. They ran a grid style steel underflooring the full length and width on each side of the buildings. Hence, the term redundantly steel built:



The corners were designed like this:

wtc.nist.gov...

Original drawing - page 25.

Is this what you mean?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Pancake effect is when the finish looks like an uneven stack of pancakes, plus, entire floors or parts of floors may still be intact.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

The other is someone's hand drawn rendering which is incorrect for completion.



Incorrect?

How did you arrive at this conclusion? These are drawings/photos of the regular floors/trusses. I just posted a link to how the corners were constructed. We agree that they were constructed differently.

The floors inside the core were also constructed like you say, as were mechanical floors. With traditional beams.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I dont think it happened all at once. From the damage and the reports my theory would be more like the building collapsed kind of like the sand in an hourglass. Middle of the building facing the towers out towards the building face away from the towers.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You didn't care to read that very interesting paper posted by Orion Stars up this page ?
The final Core Analysis of Wayne Trumpman :
911research.wtc7.net...

His explanation of the first collapse seconds of WTC 1, based on expelled gas volumes, measured via video evidence, paints a very different picture than your proposed sand box model.

Furthermore, could you explain to the audience, how burning debris from the plane impact floors could end up in the lowest basements after a pancake collapse?
I do get the feeling that you think that that debris is the cause of the months long hotspots recorded by NASA.

And what about the seismic anomalies you could not explain either?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I saw what NIST calls "the design". I saw nothing on page 25 that said how each corner was supported with no vertical supports, and running out of core to hang trusses on the length and width side. Which is why I explained it as a double steel grid without any vertical supports, which the twin towers lacked.

I saw no indication of trusses or floor joists, except a few straight lines that were supposed to be trusses? That was one corner top concrete side of the floor. It is the concrete slab design, which would hide any design under the concrete in the corner areas.

How convenient for NIST to do it that way. How very misleading as well. For people not familiar with construction to make a building indefinitely stay up, it is highly, deliberately misleading for the general public. And intended to be so.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join