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: 22
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

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.


What are you talking about?

On page 25 of the doc, not page 25 the way Acrobat numbers the page, is an original drawing from Skilling's firm.

NIST had no hand in that.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


One is the truss design drawn by someone.

The other was a photo of the perimeter primary load bearing tube steel wall frame sections. That is on what the joists and trusses were bolted to on the outside walls. I looked at the two you referenced at the website links you provided. Was there more?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


That is what I looked at, sir. That was the top side of the concrete slab not what was underneath at the corner.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


It says NIST report and is at the government site NIST uses. I do not care who drew it. It is misleading at the corner units. It is the top side of concrete slabs in the corners. It is not showing any support units in that area.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The following is not as explanatory as what I would like to see. However, the steel decking (joists) were what support the less dense trusses. No way could they hang trusses on trusses,and expect them to stay up, with or without concrete, much less heavy equipment on various floors. It was a grid of steel running from perimeter wall to perimeter wall to support the trusses. Some floors were more well supported with redundant steel than others, particularly at the tops of the towers. There is a diagram at this website.

911research.wtc7.net...

Some Floors Had More Than Trusses

FEMA's report imples that the floor diaphragms were supported only by the webbed trusses described here. It gives no indication of other structures that may have helped transfer the substantial lateral forces due to wind loading between the perimeter walls and core structures, and it provides no detail on the flooring system in the towers' cores, which were apparently supported by heavy steel I-beams. This idea that all the floors were undergirded only by trusses is a prerequisite to the truss-failure theory, which blames a chain-reaction of failures of the trusses for the building collapses. There is evidence, however, that certain floors had solid steel-frame support structures rather than light open trusses, such as the following passage from the Engineering News-Record:

On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking. 1"



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


It says NIST report and is at the government site NIST uses. I do not care who drew it. It is misleading at the corner units. It is the top side of concrete slabs in the corners. It is not showing any support units in that area.


Goodness.

The second post had a link to NIST. That has the hand drawing done by Skilling's firm.

There are NO support units or whatever in the corners. The load is spread mainly to the exterior columns, and to the adjacent long trusses. The adjacent long trusses were stronger to support the extra load. That's also available in the hand written,original form.So NIST did nothing more than reproduce it. Or are you claiming that NIST fabricated evidence?

Since you seem to believe something else, do you have a link that I can view, other than the 911 research one that is, since it in no way supports what you're saying.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


There has to be support, or there would be no floors in the corners That is some wide open areas of each floor from first floor to roof. The twin towers did not have any of those in the corners.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

There has to be support, or there would be no floors in the corners That is some wide open areas of each floor from first floor to roof. The twin towers did not have any of those in the corners.


So I guess that means you have nothing for me to look at.

Thanks for nothing....



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I gave you the website where you could have looked at diagrams, and linked an engineering article dating back to the original construction in 1969. I also inserted an excerpt from the website with a much more accurate description of the underbelly of the floors. Did it not make sense to you? Because I knew what the author was saying before I looked at the diagram. It was what I expected.

I have worked in the construction industry. I know what it takes for buildings, particularly high rise buildings, to go up and indefinitely stay up. That is the primary reason I know the NIST report is wrong with what you presented for substantiation. I have spent over 6 years studying the construction of the twin towers, and investigating the demolitions of both. I know those buildings very well, and how they were constructed. My investigation for over 6 years, until recently, was concentrated on the WTC complex.

If you choose to the accept the erroneous NIST report, that is entirely your perogative.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

I gave you the website where you could have looked at diagrams, and linked an engineering article dating back to the original construction in 1969. I also inserted an excerpt from the website with a much more accurate description of the underbelly of the floors. Did it not make sense to you? Because I knew what the author was saying before I looked at the diagram. It was what I expected.

I have worked in the construction industry. I know what it takes for buildings, particularly high rise buildings, to go up and indefinitely stay up. That is the primary reason I know the NIST report is wrong with what you presented for substantiation. I have spent over 6 years studying the construction of the twin towers, and investigating the demolitions of both. I know those buildings very well, and how they were constructed. My investigation for over 6 years, until recently, was concentrated on the WTC complex.

If you choose to the accept the erroneous NIST report, that is entirely your perogative.


Your articles in no way contradict NIST's representation of the floors/trusses.

I'll take the work of real engineers over an internet detective any day, so yes, I'll stick to the NIST report.

What a waste of time. I was just informed via U2U that some of your posts have been nominated at another website. This is not something to be proud of.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


According to you and NIST, the concrete corners of each building, at approximately 59' x 35', were holding themselves in suspended animation, with no support whatsoever. The article I presented in no way gave that impression. In fact, the article I presented was far more explicit, including visual aids, than NIST deliberately giving wrong impressions to people such as yourself. That article linked into an engineering article describing the twin towers as they were being erected.

I have no idea if you bothered to read any of what I presented, because you obviously did not understand the diagram differences in the article I presented, with a link to this discussion. You seem convinced that once the core ran out at the length at the corners, there was nothing whatsoever supporting all that steel deck flooring, not thin gauge corrugated steel sheets for concrete forms, with 4" of concrete poured in the corners of each building.

Again, since you choose to believe the erroneous NIST report, that is entirely your perogative.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


You must have missed the part, of one of my posts, where I stated I spent some years actually working in construction. That would be construction of residential and commercial buildings.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


You must have missed the part, of one of my posts, where I stated I spent some years actually working in construction. That would be construction of residential and commercial buildings.


So basically what you're saying is that your alleged experience in construction gives you expertise to say that there is no way that a REAL engineer couldn't figure out a way to support the floor corners without these alleged vertical supports?

I'm sure a few of the engineers around here would take exception to that statement.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


Putting it very bluntly, since you seem unable to read blatant implication of words, NIST lied. It cannot be said anymore plainly than that.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


Putting it very bluntly, since you seem unable to read blatant implication of words, NIST lied. It cannot be said anymore plainly than that.


Sez you.

Keep repeating that to yourself, because I see no engineers here stepping up to back your erroneous claims.

Kinda like the claim that buildings are prewired for demolition during construction. Funny that no one backs up that claim either. Does that bother you in the least, that you're the only one making these claims?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Kinda like the claim that buildings are prewired for demolition during construction. Funny that no one backs up that claim either. Does that bother you in the least, that you're the only one making these claims?


Your responses to Orion remind me more of a bully than anyone with even a slight interest in anything intelligent. Everything for you apparently boils down to popular opinion and what everyone else believes anyway. You might as well not be on a conspiracy theory site my friend, it's not for you.


I also would not be surprised if the buildings were set up during construction for whatever happened to them. They were financed by Rockefellers, but that probably means nothing to you. All you can do is laugh at us and roll your eyes, but that's fine. No one cares what you think, either.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Because I am so completely fed up with the NIST falsehoods permeating these discussions, I have linked in a top side view of the tightly packed steel joints running adjacent to the belly trusses.

911research.wtc7.net...

That is not "corrugated steel". That is not concrete. Those are steel joists packed tightly together on each floor, and fully supported under each corner of approimately 59' x 35' square feet of floor space. That is what held up cranes being used to hoist up all those tons of steel, also pictured at the link. Those are the exterior walls in one photo. Another has the steel facade along with how it was attached at the base with the same aluminum clad type steel spandrel plates, also bolted securely to the outside of the building.

Please note the photo of the skeleton of steel so tightly packed, the underside can only be partially viewed through the tubes of steel perimeter/exterior walls. Inside the core of double steel framing, can only be viewed across the emtpy top but not inside the core hole from that angle.

Redundantly reinforced steel. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of it.

The following is corrugated metal. Rippled thin gauge metal, and probably is steel when explosed to the atmospheric elsements over time. Is that what people see in the link I presented? If so, how?

www.fotosearch.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thank you, bsbray.

And I believe what I just presented will substantially support quite a number of people exposing the lies of the Bush Administration and their underlings. If the opposition continues denying the reality truth in that article and those photos, from an engineering magazine article written long before 9/11/2001, they blatantly continue to expose their own preferred denials.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, bsbray, just a minor correction.

The taxpayers, local, state, and federal, paid for the WTC via the New York Port Authority.

Not that Rockefeller did not have anything indirectly to do with it. It just did not come out of his pocket via his other business or personal interests - legal and illegal.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Redundantly reinforced steel. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of it.



This is sad....

Caption under your 1st link. Notice what floor they're working on:

Fig 3. Crane lifts column atop fifth floor exterior columns.

And now, using YOUR information source:

911research.wtc7.net...

On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.

So after over 6 allegedly yrs of allegedly thorough research, have you noticed this? Mechanical floors were like that, as were floors 1-8. Floors 1-8 were like that because those floors didn't have the spandrel plates to attach the floor trusses to, due to the "pitchfork" design of the lower exterior columns.

A truly pathetic effort OS.




top topics



 
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join