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: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Like I've said in another post. We inspect our design to make sure it is being constructed as designed. Which includes weld inspections (of which, I have even done myself while working for a QA company).




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That is because the only reinforced concrete inside the center core were the room floors inside the center core, also holding stairwells with coatings of concrete covered steel staircases, rest rooms and other utility rooms. That makes good sense to you and I. However, does it to others, who do not bother studying and comprehend the designs of any buildings, much less those of the twin towers or WTC 7?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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...



You're funny.


I'm done with you. You're being ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I believe you. All reputable contractors and sub-contractors do along with those designing the buildings.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Like I've said in another post. We inspect our design to make sure it is being constructed as designed. Which includes weld inspections (of which, I have even done myself while working for a QA company).



Exactly.

And when you were working for that QA company, did you have the specs for the welding? You must have, right?

And that's who was inspecting them on a daily basis. Inspectors. Not the engineers.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


Daily inspections? How speedily do you think concrete and steel buildings go up and are finished? Do you think quality control people stand over the shoulders welders or any other workers 8 hours a day? If so, why?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


One other point. Contractors and sub-contractors have foremen for supervsion 8 or more hours a day. They can do daily quality control inspection any time they please. However, if they have to stand over the shoulders of any of their workers 8 or more hours a day, they better hire new more qualified workers.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
And when you were working for that QA company, did you have the specs for the welding? You must have, right?


Yes. You have to have the specs to inspect if you yourself didn't design.


And that's who was inspecting them on a daily basis. Inspectors. Not the engineers.


Well, since I was an engineer while I worked there, you could say the inspector was an engineer. Fancy that.

Plus. Do you really think that the designers are going to just let the contractors construct the wrong way to be found by an inspector? No. The engineers would be there at the start (at the very least) to make sure the contractor was constructing correctly. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Is it that you just like to argue?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


You cannot distinguish the difference between an H-beam and another type steel box column, and you have the pomposity to call me ridculous. That is hilariously rich.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Well, since I was an engineer while I worked there, you could say the inspector was an engineer. Fancy that.

Plus. Do you really think that the designers are going to just let the contractors construct the wrong way to be found by an inspector? No. The engineers would be there at the start (at the very least) to make sure the contractor was constructing correctly. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Is it that you just like to argue?


yes, you were an engineer, but you weren't THE engineer, were you?

Actually, you're making my case for me , thx.

You're saying that the engineer would be there making sure things were done right.

Still have doubts about whether or not the welds were up to spec?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

yes, you were an engineer, but you weren't THE engineer, were you?

Actually, you're making my case for me , thx.

You're saying that the engineer would be there making sure things were done right.

Still have doubts about whether or not the welds were up to spec?


Actually, he is not. However, feel free to continue to delude yourself all you wish in relation to the twin towers and WTC 7.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Still have doubts about whether or not the welds were up to spec?


If they were up to spec, they would have been stronger than the material welded. That is specification. If you can find a specification that states the weld shall be weaker than the steel being welded, I'm all ears. Until then, you have proven my point.

Either they wouldn't be up to spec and shear at the weld every single time or they would be at spec and shear in various places. Which is it? Which point are you arguing?

Edit: Got rid of double negative.

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If they were up to spec, they would have been stronger than the material welded. That is specification.


Are you seriously making these statements?

1- you haven't seen the specs for the towers
2- spec is that the weld is stronger than the material welded

Wanna rethink that?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 
I shouldn't even jump into this very complicated argument half cocked, an half informed as to the four or five pages posted most recently in this argument, it doesn't seem to prove to me how the molten metal would have got there as the melting point of the metal is far higher than the burning temp of the fuel ,high octane kerosene or jet fuel, are we still discussing this or do I need to read the 30 pages of post to discuss this info.

Also I hope noone turns this into a huge argument but the weld filler metal used in construction,in my case pipe for oil ind., IS IN FACT DENSER AND MORE FLEXIBLE WHICH IS VERY HARD TO ACHIEVE BOTH THES PRPERTIES AND IN EFFECT COST WAY MORE, this is why this filler material is more expensive in rods than it is to use the metal typically used in the beams themselves

Now you'll both hate me when I say the metal in the structural material is weakend to some degree when the filler or weld is apllied due to the heat stress placed on it. It becomes more brittle, some of this is relieved using analytical processes in our field but is not usually used in non-interior pressure situations, such as structures. These circumstances weaken the metal directly adjacent to the weld. I really don't mean to argue if it seems that way.

The general answers I would be looking for is how all three of these buildings fell in their footprints with hardly no deviation from center without planning. I hate to rule out the possibility of it happening but I do defy anyone to prove how it could because the theory put forth by the government is an unbelievable joke. Jet fuel will not melt this steel without being pressurized and oxygen or aid in combustion being added (although I don't know the grade specs used in construction-yet-). I will readmore on this I am looking for alternative THEORIES



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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"?

so its inconceivable to you that in the 30 year or so lifespan of a building that maybe someone was doing work and would clip a set of wires that didnt seem to go anywhere or that rats may have been in chewing on them or a water leak caused corrosion or blah blah blah blah. it seems impossible to you that in 30 years something could happen to these wires?

but the rest of that is after 30 years would you just arbitrarily hook demo charges up to wires without first testing them all for continuity? why bother when you can just run your own lines that you KNOW are good?

and does ANY of this change the FACT that almost ALL demo contractors will use detcord because it is the BETTER CHOICE? i dont know why this fails to register with you honestly. no, its not the ONLY choice but it is by far the best one so why screw around with 30yo wires that you didnt run when you can pull the detcord to make your ringmains and then you KNOW its primed correctly and theres almost 0 chance of failure? i know i wouldnt use wires that i didnt pull when i was rigging but hey, maybe im just the oddball and all other demo guys are lazy pukes who'd love a shortcut.




Is it making more business sense for cost effectiveness now?

no, not at all, but is it because im not able to see your point (which i do i just disagree with you) or because you have your mind made up based on an article you cant find and apparently dont know who published it to try to get a copy from them. i mean, i can respect that you just dont take my word for it that i DO know how to blow things up very effectivly, and that i was very good at it when i was in the field...but have you tried contacting any contractors or demo companies to get them to confirm or refute your theory here?



More particularly, when prime real estate is involved for redevelopment consideration by the current or prospective buyers.


real estate agent: "oh and this beautiful building is already wired for the day you want to blow it up, just add the charges and throw the switch"

rofl yeah, i would love to be a fly on the wall for that sales pitch


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.

happen to find a copy of the building permit or whatever permit NYC requires you to have before you go adding anything to a structure? copy of the inspection report? or was all this done on the hush hush?


Anyone studying or having studied controlled demolition implosion, construction of buildings, and physics knows that is a given.

and yet, ive heard of almost no demo guys agreeing with that statement.
so for me personally, not having studied explosives but having actually used them, im going to respectfully disagree.

though im willing to agree to disagree at this point as i dont think either of us is going to be swayed without more to go on.

again though, should you ever at some point down the road find that article, feel free to u2u the link to me as id love to read it. i do try to keep up with stuff even though im out of the field these days.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Are you seriously making these statements?

1- you haven't seen the specs for the towers
2- spec is that the weld is stronger than the material welded

Wanna rethink that?


Yes, I'm making these statements. Normal spec is for the weld to be stronger than the steel. Are you seriously making the statements that it wouldn't? If so, the onus is on you to find the code used and show me where the specification says that the weld is to be weaker than the steel.

Which is it?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


The same could be said about electrical wiring in any building. Rats and mice can chew through it. "Water leaks cause corrosion blah blah blah".

It is not as if any demolition team will not check the pre-wiring first. There is a very easy quick way to test wiring to made certain it works when the current is turned on, before experts start packing in explosives and capping them to the wires.

That means your negatives of "rat chewing" and "water corrosion" will not particularly or normally be a negative, when deciding to legally pre-wire for future demolitions. The chances of all pre-wiring becoming "rat chewed" or "water corroded", confined to pre-wiring for future demolitions, would be minimal to non-existant.

If you choose to believe there is no practicality or significant cost savings in pre-wiring during construction, that is up to you. I still do not understand why you have such a problem with legal practical cost effectiveness for the future.

As for the down-side, when not legally motivated and using pre-wiring and pre-setting prematurely, I did find the following article exceptionally interesting:

findarticles.com...

"LESSONS FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER FOR OPEN SPACE PLANNING GENERALLY AND BOSTON'S BIG DIG SPECIFICALLY

Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2005 by Clark, Mary L
Abstract:

This paper looks to several land use planning issues at slake in both the World Trade Center redevelopment and Central Artery/ Tunnel Project, offering some lessons for the future of public open space planning with respect to the influence of the press, the centrality of politics, the urgency of addressing public and private claims of land ownership, the need to engage the public, and seizing the opportunity to create new public transportation links.

INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on five issues raised by the World Trade Center redevelopment that have direct application to Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project: (1) questions of the public versus private nature of the site; (2) the role of public consultation in openpace planning; (3) the selection of, and reliance on, a master plan; (4) the use of landfill produced by site excavation; and (5) the use of the. building project as an opportunity for creating new public transportation services. My central concern is for the future applicability of the New York and Boston experiences. I argue that they are not sui generis as many commentators have suggested; rather, these two examples offer important lessons in open-space planning writ large.

I. THE PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NATURE OF THE SITE

A. The World Trade Center

In the period immediately following the end of the second World War, it was uncertain whether New York City would remain a viable business center in the face of an increasingly globalized commercial realm.1 The original World Trade Center project was developed in response to this concern, principally by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and his brother, Chase Manhattan Bank Chair David Rockefeller.2 The Port of New York Authority3 was brought into the World Trade Center project for two main reasons: (1) as a state agency-indeed as a bi-state agency-the Port Authority possessed bonding power-that is, it could finance the project by selling bonds;4 and (2) the Port Authority had eminent domain power to condemn private lots in order to clear land for the towers and other related construction.5

The sixteen-acre parcel on which the World Trade Center complex was built was originally composed of thriving electronics shops, giving rise to the neighborhood's moniker, "Radio Row." In exercising its eminent domain power to clear this land, the Port Authority relied on the stated public purpose of "world trade."6 Whether such a purpose would be recognized today may be addressed by the Supreme Court this term.

A mere six weeks before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Port Authority leased all of the office space contained within the towers for ninety-nine years to Silverstein Properties, Inc., owned by New York City real estate developer Larry Silverstein.7 This lease poses significant complications for the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site. By effectively granting Silverstein an ownership interest in the office space,8 even while recognizing the Port Authority's ongoing ownership interest in the underlying land,9 the lease requires the Port Authority to work closely with Silverstein in rebuilding the site.10"


Silvertstein developed and eventually owned WTC 7. The Port Authority held in trust for taxpayers the land he leased for pennies on the taxpayer dollar. There is government catering to elite private ownership at taxpayer cost. There is David Rockefeller always in the thick of it as usual.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

and yet, ive heard of almost no demo guys agreeing with that statement.
so for me personally, not having studied explosives but having actually used them, im going to respectfully disagree.


If you have heard almost none agreeing with it, does that mean you have heard some agreeing with what I stated? If not, what do you mean?

I am always willing to agree to disagree, when a consensus cannot be reached on any particular subjective subject.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Are you seriously making these statements?

1- you haven't seen the specs for the towers
2- spec is that the weld is stronger than the material welded

Wanna rethink that?


Here's a normal spec.


Weld Strength:

Shear at throat of fillet welds:
Nominal Shear Stress = Fnw = 0.6Fexx (1003.2-14)
LRFD: φw = 0.75
Design Shear Strength =
φRn = φwFnw A = 0.45Fexx A (1003.2-15)
ASD: Ωw = 2.0
Allowable Shear Strength = (1003.2-16)
Rn /Ωw = FnwA/Ωw = 0.3Fexx A
A = effective throat area

Made with E70 series electrodes or F7XX-EXXX fluxelectrode
combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fexx = 70 ksi (483 MPa)
Made with E60 series electrodes or F6XX-EXXX fluxelectrode
combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fexx = 60 ksi (414 MPa)

Tension or compression on groove or butt welds shall be
the same as those specified for the connected material.


www.steeljoist.org...

Now, if this was the code used and the members all failed at the welds, then the welds would not have been to spec.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If they were up to spec, they would have been stronger than the material welded. That is specification. If you can find a specification that states the weld shall be weaker than the steel being welded, I'm all ears. Until then, you have proven my point.

Some very interesting possibilities about the steel and welding raised here.
Such massive butt joins would be very difficult to weld and there's the issue of weakening the steel in the vicinity of the weld due to de-carburisation as mentioned by Richard Gizinu.

It would be impractical to test some selected welded joints to destruction so how would an inspecting engineer inspect and pass such work?

The usual approach AFAIK for super-critical construction welds is to x-ray them which is going to be difficult on such a thick walled tube.

Just a guess here, but has all the inspection data gone missing with other critical construction information?

The plot is thickening

[edit on 23/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join