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: 24
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Damocles
 


Owners are concerned with cost. Experts are used to a variety of demolitions and materials to get the job done. If they want a job, they have to meet the owner paying the bill at least half way. Such is the way it goes in the business world.

sure, its legal and theres nothing immoral illegal or unethical about it, its just a pointless waste of time and money considering that any demo team with half a brain isnt going to waste their time and efforts to make sure all the wiring is still good after 30 years and the fact that most demo teams dont rig an entire building with electric caps for the simple FACT that detcord is safer and a more sure way to make sure that none of their charges are going to fail.



What says any control demolition expert has to use that?

has to? nothing at all. again, its just safer and more efficient.


Is it required for them to demolish buildings?

required? not at all. its just the best way.


Or is it something that can be used but does not have to be specifically used?

its just the best choice


Wiring is wiring when it comes to demoltions wiring. Does it matter if have to separately cap the wires to the explosives?

correct, wiring is wiring but why bother putting something in place that is MOST likely NEVER going to be used? waste of time and materials which equals a waste of money.


The wires are not live when they do the pre-liminary work.

yeah, i got that part


I still cannot see any problem with legally pre-wiring during construction, because they might have to do one extra step which takes little time to do. It is only wiring and nothing. It is not even live until ready to be used.

yeah i get all that, it just makes no sense to do it so why bother? do you have any references to anyone anywhere doing htis other than the article you cant find?

has anyone anywhere ever heard of a construction, electrical, or architectural company ever doing this in reality? has anyone ever heard of a demo team using pre existing wiring that they themselves didnt put in place? for that matter anyone heard of a CD where electric caps were the predominant method for detonating the charges?


Is 9/11 and the "official" report standing in the way of the logical beneficial feasibility of it?

.......i keep waiting for you to type "just kidding". or was that a serious question?

to answer you if it was a serious question then the simple answer is "no". the reason i dont see this being a rational, logical, or common practice is that while my construction or civil/structural engineering experience and training is not what some of you others have, what i do bring to this is 12 years of experience blowing things up.

now, before anyone comes along and says "oh yeah well the army doesnt train you for CD'ing buildings" let me just say that while dropping a building may be different than a bridge or cratering a road, its only different in the planning. cutting steel is cutting steel. setting off a linear shape charge is no different than setting off a cratering charge. you use the same methods to set up the charges regardless of what youre blowing up. civillians tend to use a little more restraint than i would but theres not that much differentce.

so sure, a contractor may prewire a building but those wires are wasted as is the time to run them cuz no one is going to use them to blow up that building ever. (ok maybe not ever but odds are against it ever happening)

BUT, past ALL of that, thres the simple yet solid fact that detcord is safer and more positive way of setting off a series of charges to insure that they will all go off and nothing will go wrong so while prewireing is legal its pointless.


According to the engineering article I read, various building owners had already done it during construction. If that article turns up again, I will definitely start a new discussion with link and excerpt to the article.

so is this the only article youve ever seen this practice mentioned? nohting about it anywhere else? id love to read it but i understand if it is gone. any other references would be helpful.


but i got this odd feeling ive wasted my time typing any of this. you'll believe what you want and nothings going to change that. i can accept and respect that. Besides, what effect on the 911 CT discussions does this even have? if one must believe that it was a CD on 911 it could have been done any number of ways as far as the "wiring" goes but that doesnt change the fact that theres no physical evidence to support a CD theory.

back to work for me, peace




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Now from a pratical point of view, if the wiring for controlled demolitions "goes bad", does that mean the wiring for electrical is bound to "go bad" as well? Why would either one arbitrarily "go bad"?

In the case of pre-wiring for prime real estate areas of re-development, the electricians and demolition experts either want a job or do not. What does it matter whether they get paid to pre-wire or wait to wire at a later date? If the building is left standing, they had a cushy job during construction and got paid to do it. So experts do not care when they wire as long as they get paid to do do it. That leaves their time free to accept other jobs, without having to spend months wiring a building that may not be completely stripped/gutted.

The owner of the land and building may wish to sell. Prospective buyers may want the land but not the building. They may want a different building at that partciular location. Someone has to pay to pull the building, and the owner is not going to do that after construction and no pre-wiring. Pre-wiring is a nice bargaining chip for the owner, considering the complete cost of controlled demolitions after buildings are erected and finished with no pre-wiring.

Is it making more business sense for cost effectiveness now? Particularly, when considering, the average life of more modern commercial buildings, including high rises, in NYC is 30 years or less. More particularly, when prime real estate is involved for redevelopment consideration by the current or prospective buyers.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I have taken no oath. We have a code of ethics but not an oath.


page 88 of 166 of the pdf. "Criteria for Design Slabs - Design Assumptions" scan from Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson


h) Structural steel floor systems, including spandrals and bridging between floor beams or trusses, act together with the concrete.


Emhasis mine. It wouldn't state floor beams or trusses if there were only trusses.


Thx for the correction. Actually, I didn't have in mind you standing there with your hand raised, etc. LOL.

Of course there's floor beams OR trusses. That contradicts what he's been saying. OR... means that they're exclusive. Some areas had trusses only. Some had floor beams.

Did you read his posts? He used the photo of the 5th floor crane to justify his positon that all floors were similar, when in fact, the bottom 8 floors and mechanical floors only were built using all traditional beams.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Ha, who was accusing who of being a bully? Sounds like someone got a little ruffled.


The discourse I was talking about was between you and Orion and had nothing to do with me.


Your Rockefeller statements are a joke, right? It's just something Cts use to make them look cool while posting, right? Because if you're truly stating your beliefs, the world when you get out of college is gonna be a rude awakening. Why else do you think the Truthers are disappearing? Because they grow up and get a dose of reality.


This is why I said you were bullying Orion more than responding with anything intelligent. None of what I'm quoting here is relevant to anything to do with 9/11 in the least. That whole paragraph is just a snipe.


PS -- I don't mean to stereotype but do you come here from JREF, Gizinu? I hope not, because that forum is kind of a running joke for its vitriol and hostility and arrogance all in the place of where its right-minded heads should be. Not saying that characterizes you but it's as if you feel we're that kind of crowd, but we're not, and we don't resonate with the way you're posting.



If it had nothing to do with you, then why interject yourself?

So you making inaccurate posts about how the Rockefellers blah blah blah is relevant to there being melted steel below 7? How? Sounds like you're the one sniping and going off on a tangent.

No need to use my last name. Call me Dick. Nope, never been to JREF. I lurk there every now and then, but never posted. I've actually had all my experience debunking CTs on a site that has NOTHING to do with 9/11. I was directed here when a dude there referred to John Lear and I did a search, finding this site.

So how about you, are you so wrapped up in the "Truth Movement" and so positive about your govt/world views that you are/were an administrator at another CT site?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
If it had nothing to do with you, then why interject yourself?


If it's so wrong then why not have me banned?


So you making inaccurate posts about how the Rockefellers blah blah blah is relevant to there being melted steel below 7? How?


I never said anything about WTC7.


I've actually had all my experience debunking CTs


So "debunking" is a "hobby" for you. Good for you.


Did you know that when you get into politically motivated arguments, researchers have shown that it triggers a neurochemical response in your brain and that you could actually become addicted to it? Every time you re-assert yourself, you get a little rush and you feel good inside. Guess what I'm thinking, Richard? This is something everyone here should always keep in mind.


So how about you, are you so wrapped up in the "Truth Movement"


That's something else I haven't said a damned thing about.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Thx for the correction. Actually, I didn't have in mind you standing there with your hand raised, etc. LOL.

Of course there's floor beams OR trusses. That contradicts what he's been saying. OR... means that they're exclusive. Some areas had trusses only. Some had floor beams.

Did you read his posts? He used the photo of the 5th floor crane to justify his positon that all floors were similar, when in fact, the bottom 8 floors and mechanical floors only were built using all traditional beams.


That shows you how much you understand what I or anyone else presented contradicting your biased neophyte opinion. Did you bother to read any of the engineering article? The twin towers had tightly packed steel joists and trusses in grid design on every floor.

You obviously failed to notice the exterior horizontal steel beams running the complete perimeter of each floor. That is to what the exterior steel tube wall frame spandrel plates were bolted. Then the trusses were bolted to the exterior frame walls, on each floor, and attached on the other side at the center core.

When they ran out of parallel length core, they had to support the remaining trusses a different way. That means underbelly steel beam support from one perimeter wall to the other on which to attach those trusses at the corners on the inside. That meant running it under each truss or through the web of each truss from one perimeter wall to the other. Grids of steel under the reinforced concrete floors. The trusses were also heavily bolted to the steel beam joists directly above them.

Some floors would be continuously holding heavy equipment, and had more redundant steel support than others. Trusses running one way and tightly packed steel beam joists under the concrete running the other. More thinner gauge steel would form rectangular pans to hold 4" of reinforced concrete.

The concrete was the reference you used from NIST report page 25, not what was under the concrete holding it securely in place. NIST too conveniently left out that part on page 25 of their report. The page to which you so conveniently referred and now argue in vanity and nothing more.

Did you not understand those floors had to hold cranes moved to every floor where needed during construction? Do you actually think the way you believe the floors were designed were going to hold cranes for hoisting tons of steel sections, piece by piece, up 110 stories for two buildings? With each level erected putting more stress on the lower levels with each rise.

Then there were the hat trusses, the center core beams, steel framing inside the core, interior wall steel frame beams in floor space outside the center core, three story steel tube framed perimeter load bearing support sections, and the steel framed three story high tube facade. All having to be hoisted from each floor as the building was rising. They certainly did not stop at the 5th floor. We know that is a certainty.

911research.wtc7.net...

Your comments have gone from the inane to the absurd. I gave you qualified description of the floors, including an enginerring journal article describing the construction as it was being done. Griff attempted to reason with you as well. Bsbray has tried to reason with you. You obviously do not understand the construction of the WTC twin towers. Yet, you insult everyone else taking the time to learn it, and then quite patiently explain it to you until now. It is your obnoxious behavior which wore out the patience of others.

You have a right to your opinion. You have no right to bully people because your opinion does not agree with facts presented. Anytime someone relentlessly insists corners of buildings hold themselves in suspended animation, it is not worth the effort of any further response.

The subject is WTC 7 not the floors of the twin towers. Can you now opine if you can get back on topic with something besides vanity argument on the wrong topic?

The reason 7 made such a mess being pulled is because it was trapezoid in design. It was bound to look like a sloppy pull with that design lacking four corner perpendicular angles. WTC 7 was not designed by the same architect, nor contractor oversight done by the same contractor overseeing the twin towers.

I was greatly relieved to read that. I was not surprised to learn Larry Silverstein was the key player developing WTC 7 for design and hiring his own contractor. Thus, it blatantly tells me Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 pre-wired for future demolition during construction. He just excercised his option to pull WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 after having all the demolitions packed in steel prior to 9/11/2001. No wires to notice which were not already there from the time of construction.

WTC would not have fallen the way it did had there not been pre-wiring and demolitions already set to charge on the morning 9/11/2001. Anyone studying or having studied controlled demolition implosion, construction of buildings, and physics knows that is a given. Plus, Larry Silverstein told the public WTC 7 was pulled. Meaning controlled demolition implosion and no other way of falling into its own highly irregular footprint.

That irregular trapezoidal design is a key factor in understanding exactly what brought WTC 7 down. Even Larry Silverstein could not falsely pass that one off as "Debris and fire did it." Silverstein might be considered a smooth talker by some people. However, others recognize him for the con artist he has long been.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
If it had nothing to do with you, then why interject yourself?


If it's so wrong then why not have me banned?


So you making inaccurate posts about how the Rockefellers blah blah blah is relevant to there being melted steel below 7? How?


I never said anything about WTC7.


I've actually had all my experience debunking CTs


So "debunking" is a "hobby" for you. Good for you.


Did you know that when you get into politically motivated arguments, researchers have shown that it triggers a neurochemical response in your brain and that you could actually become addicted to it? Every time you re-assert yourself, you get a little rush and you feel good inside. Guess what I'm thinking, Richard? This is something everyone here should always keep in mind.


So how about you, are you so wrapped up in the "Truth Movement"


That's something else I haven't said a damned thing about.



Banned? For what? I just find it funny that you get yourself all worked up and accuse someone of bullying, and then start backpedaling and saying your feathers aren't ruffled. LOL...

That's right, you never said anything about 7. Instead you wrote a whole para, spewing some off topic garbage about the Rockefellers, etc. FYI - look at the thread title again.

Look in the mirror first, and then re-examine your neurotransmitters.

Yeah, I know you didn't say a damn thing about it. This is funny too, you think I'm a JREF'er, which I'm not, which says that you've got some preconceived notions about those guys. But you ARE/WERE an admin over at 9/11Studies, right? Says a lot about you, kid...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
But you ARE/WERE an admin over at 9/11Studies, right? Says a lot about you, kid...


And what would that "say" about him? I'd like to know. Especially when you are the one accussing him of having pre-concieved notions. What does that say about you?

But, this is getting off topic. BTW, let's not forget the new rules around here about ad hominum attacks.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


911research.wtc7.net...

Look closely. The cranes are on the core columns. Therefore your whole line of reasoning is debunked.

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...
The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates.

So you're wrong about the spandrel plates also. The spandrel plates were welded to the exterior columns. Mounting points for the trusses were on the spandrel plates. There are NO horizontal tubes. There is NO grid.

Did you notice where I'm getting these quotes? Your source.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
[
But, this is getting off topic. BTW, let's not forget the new rules around here about ad hominum attacks.


Fine, I can live like that.

So do you agree with Orionstar's opinion about spandrel plates/full width horizontal beams/truss bolting/etc, or not?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


Why don't you start a new discussion on twin tower floors, or stay on topic of WTC 7?

All you continue to state about your own knowledge of the twin towers is you have none.

You best learn what a crane looks like, and how it is used in construction of high rise buildings, including WTC 7. Or any potential discussion you start will go bust for lack of knowledge, by those willing to post to that potential discussion.

You also better learn to what spandrel plates would be bolted, including any used on WTC 7. According to your ill-conceived notions, spandrel plates are bolted to 4" deep lighter weight reinforced concrete depth, and corner areas hang in suspended animation with no support necessary.

You are being exceptionally discourteous to the intiator of this discussion.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
So do you agree with Orionstar's opinion about spandrel plates/full width horizontal beams/truss bolting/etc, or not?


I don't believe anyone's opinion. What I will believe is when I get to see the entire construction documents. I wonder why the construction documents/construction permits have been erased and/or classified? What are they afraid of that people will find out?

It can't be because of National Security. The towers no longer exist.

Why are "we" not allowed to study it? Ask yourself that.

As far as the permits. Here is the link to New York City's Department of Buildings website:

www.nyc.gov...

Look up any building in Manhattan.

Here is a sample of a building's permits.

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov...

Notice there are 4 pages worth of permits. The earliest one being 1991. So, I'm assuming that the building was built in 1991. So, in the last 17 years, there are 4 pages worth of permits. BTW, I just picked a building at random in NYC.

Now, here is WTC 2:

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov...

"NO PREVIOUSLY ISSUED PERMITS FOUND FOR THIS PROPERTY"

Why is that? Are they telling us that a building that is 17 years old would have 4 pages worth but a building that was over 30 years old would have none?

I don't think so. They removed the permits. Why? What are they hiding?

And don't get me started about the construction documents.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
So do you agree with Orionstar's opinion about spandrel plates/full width horizontal beams/truss bolting/etc, or not?


I don't believe anyone's opinion.


Nice dodge.

I'll take that as a resounding no then.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Why don't you start a new discussion on twin tower floors, or stay on topic of WTC 7?



FYI - you're the one that went off on the floors/trusses/horizontal beams/underfloor grids. Not me.

The spandrel plates were welded to the exterior columns. Truss mounting tabs were welded to the spandrel plates. Trusses were bolted to the tabs.

There was no grid under each floor.

Deal with it.

I'm done.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


It's not a dodge. There are articles pre-9/11 saying things like "concrete reinforced steel" core or "steel reinforced concrete" cores. Then we have no mention of concrete in the cores after 9/11. So, no. I will not take ANYONE's opinion on how the towers were constructed until I see the as-built drawings and accompanying specs. myself. Sorry that that was not the answer you were looking for.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

You best learn what a crane looks like, and how it is used in construction of high rise buildings,


Are these photos of cranes? And are they on the core columns?

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


It's not a dodge. There are articles pre-9/11 saying things like "concrete reinforced steel" core or "steel reinforced concrete" cores. Then we have no mention of concrete in the cores after 9/11. So, no. I will not take ANYONE's opinion on how the towers were constructed until I see the as-built drawings and accompanying specs. myself. Sorry that that was not the answer you were looking for.


Ole !!!

Another dodge. Ever consider a career being a matador?

You've made 2 posts now saying that since there's no plans to look at, you're uncomfortable making any judgements that they were built to spec. That sounds like a good idea.

But you also apparently DO feel comfortable saying in that you believe there was shoddy construction, even though there is NO evidence at all of this.

I'd call that biased.

Also, do you really expect us to believe that the engineers are going to be on site to inspect welds, etc? I don't think so. The place was crawling with inspectors during the construction.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


No, because the base is not a core column in either WTC twin tower. Thank you for proving my point that you have not a clue what a core column actually looks like. It is a greatly oversized H-beam. Do you know what a primary supporting H-beam looks like in any concrete and steel building?

The photo at this link is much better:

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
But you also apparently DO feel comfortable saying in that you believe there was shoddy construction, even though there is NO evidence at all of this.


I've never said that there WAS shodding construction. Just that the possibility exists.


I'd call that biased.


And I'd call that reading comprehension skills.


Also, do you really expect us to believe that the engineers are going to be on site to inspect welds, etc? I don't think so.


So, tell me. What do we inspect then while performing quality control/quality assurance?


The place was crawling with inspectors during the construction.


And the engineers would have been part of the team. I don't get your point.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


No, I was not. Better check back further in the discussion before making any further false assertions.

As for quality control inspection, all buildings are checked for quality control, particularly by those issuing permits to build. The fact that permits are lacking for review states someone has something heavy duty to hide, and that can only be done by those with the power, political connections, and money to hide it. Like, say, David Rockefeller.

In fact, the architect took the time to quality control inspect his designs. That meant showing up unannounced whenever he felt like it during construction. Architects do that quite often. They want to make certain what they design stays up according to design and their claims made about design. Law suits can be highly expensive all the time. Good reputations are lost quite easily, in cases of poor design and finished construction.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join