Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

Originally posted by gottago

Please provide a link picturing and describing "the perimeter primary lateral load bearing support wall units."

I already did in a recent previous post. The following is the same link. I also stated anyone accessing has to scroll down to see them. They are rusty colored. In order to remove the surface rust, they will sandblast it off:

www.serendipity.li...

This is what will read under the bottom of the photos:

Figure 2-7 (left) shows the erection of prefabricated components, forming exterior wall and floor deck units.

There is also an excellent photo of the facade sections as well.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion,

Sigh. But those are the "wheatchex," as they're commonly called. And they made up the perimeter walls. there is no second perimeter structural system.

reply to post by OrionStars


Will you PLEASE stop making things up!

No there weren't double exterior walls on the towers. There was a single thickness wall made up of 3-column panels. The aluminum cladding was attached directly to these columns.



From here: www.sciencedirect.com... sion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4936599&md5=71774a89e14f7e1245b723440121621c

The 3-column panels were prefabricated with the spandrels attached to the inside wall (as seen in your pic). The aluminum cladding went directly on the outside of the column (as seen in my pic).

BY THE WAY - guess why that RED primer in your picture is RED...it's because it has iron oxide in it. That's probably going to cause an issue on another argument you're having. Shall I come over and post your pic for you?





[edit on 2-13-2008 by Valhall]

[

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Will you PLEASE stop making things up!

No there weren't double exterior walls on the towers. There was a single thickness wall made up of 3-column panels. The aluminum cladding was attached directly to these columns.

That is the steel facade clad in aluminum - not the steel perimeter primary load bearing wall frames under that facade. You need to study the building construction before again falsely accusing people of lying.

I did twice link in a photo of what lies under that facade. The facade did not hold up the floor trusses at the perimeter walls. What was under it, and also attached to the outside of the buildings, did.

Double steel walls outside. Double steel framing at the central core.

reply to post by OrionStars


You know, Orion, as you like to say, with all due respect, you're just wrong. Val is entirely right.

Please don't waste another two pages arguing the point. Just let it drop, for once. You are simply wrong.

If I can penetrate what you're writing... oh, but never mind. The construction of the perimeter is as Val posted.



[edit on 13-2-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by OrionStars

 

You know, Orion, as you like to say, with all due respect, you're just wrong. Val is entirely right.

Val is not correct. Val embedded a photo of the facade/false front. I gave the opportunity - twice - to you and anyone else to examine both designs of both outside attached perimeter walls. Did you bother to do that after you requested, it and I complied with that request for a repeat of the link already posted? If not, why are you claiming Val is correct if you cannot tell the difference between designs and where they were located on the buildings? By saying Val is correct that is what you have blatantly implied.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion,

There are 2 components to the perimeters: the steel "wheatchex" box column and spandrel assemblies, and the aluminum decorative cladding that covered them. That's it.

Your link shows exactly that for Chrissakes! Don't be a nerve saw. You are spreading an absolutely baseless misconception. Or your command of the English language is so twisted that no one can penetrate what you mean.

Seriously, you are trying everyone's patience on this board. You post incessantly and topic derail by disputing such obvious facts as this. And it goes on for pages until you kill the threads. Don't think any of this is going unnoticed.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by OrionStars

 

You know, Orion, as you like to say, with all due respect, you're just wrong. Val is entirely right.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by gottago]

I will qualify. Anytime someone is going to counter, that someone should politiely start with this, "With all due respect...." That tells the opponent a disagreeing counter is coming, and the counter is fully intended to argue against the opponent's points of argument, rather than intended to personally slam the opponent. That is the way these or any other opposing discussions should be conducted. Argue the points, rather than using ad hominems in lieu of valid points and counterpoints.

When opinions are seen by someone as their personal being, that becomes a severe problem, when attempting to carry on any civil opposing discussion.

That is a highly uninformed way of referring to the twin towers. It was not "wheatchex". It was not "mesh". It was grid of steel of two completely different designs on the outside attached perimeter walls.

If the concept of the construction is not correct, how can anyone conduct an informed discussion of the buildings using the wrong abstract terminology?

Patience is tried, and frustration normally sets in, when people have it wrong, while refusing to become self-informed in order to correct their own mis- or disinformation.

Wheat chex look nothing like the double steel perimeter walls of the twin towers. Purdue defintely got it wrong, and their personnel certainly knows it.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by OrionStars

That is a highly uninformed way of referring to the twin towers. It was not "wheatchex". It was not "mesh". It was grid of steel of two completely different designs on the outside attached perimeter walls.

That is the usual slang term for these:



Here is a ref. from Dr. Judy Wood, the authority you yourself refer to incessantly: "In some of the photos, observe what Judy Wood calls “wheat chex,” ie large pieces of the perimeter wall" link.

If the concept of the construction is not correct, how can anyone conduct an informed discussion of the buildings using the wrong abstract terminology?

Very true. that is why you should know what you're talking about before you post.

Patience is tried, and frustration normally sets in, when people have it wrong, while refusing to become self-informed in order to correct their own mis- or disinformation.

Patience is gone. Please follow your own advice and stop arguing over the very basics of the WTC in such a misguided fashion. You have the natural human tendency to think you are always right--and to a disconcerting degree, seeing as how many times people need to correct you, which is pretty much until you drive them to distraction with your misguided persistence--but stop and inform yourself before posting like an open spigot.

Originally posted by OrionStars


That is the steel facade clad in aluminum - not the steel perimeter primary load bearing wall frames under that facade. You need to study the building construction before again falsely accusing people of lying.

That is the ONLY steel exterior wall. No matter how many times you repeat one of your pet delusions on a subject many of us have spent REAL time studying and actually do understand - you can't change the facts of construction. You can flap those intellectually dishonest lips of yours until the cows come home and those walls will not transform in the past to be made of anything but ONE layer of steel columns. The only 'FACADE' is the aluminum cladding that was placed on the SINGLE steel column exterior wall...which like the REST of the steel in the building was painted with red primer pigmented with iron oxide.

Just a note - don't come back and repeat yourself at me on this particular subject...you'll just be digging your hole deeper...and at your own hands, not mine.

[edit on 2-13-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by gottago
That is the usual slang term for these:



Here is a ref. from Dr. Judy Wood, the authority you yourself refer to incessantly: "In some of the photos, observe what Judy Wood calls “wheat chex,” ie large pieces of the perimeter wall" link.

I could care less who is using the term. Exactly how do you see it comparable to shape and design of a "wheatchex"? Since Dr. Wood is not participating, I cannot ask her as well.

I see nothing to remind me looking at those steel perimeter primary loading bearing support wall frames to remind me of "wheatchex". They remind me of steel grids for justified reason.

Very true. that is why you should know what you're talking about before you post.

I was not the one misinforming people the facade was what appears above. As I stated more than once, they are two entirely different designs. Which was done for two entirely different reasons, though both were attached to the outside of both buildings. It is highly obvious from both photos you presented, they are, indeed, highly different designs. The facade covered that design in the photo above.

Patience is gone.

I am cetain it does become highly frustrating to be told what is written is wrong, and then continue to insist black is white and white black, as you continued to do. It would be for anyone.

Originally posted by gottago

Here is a ref. from Dr. Judy Wood, the authority you yourself refer to incessantly: "In some of the photos, observe what Judy Wood calls “wheat chex,” ie large pieces of the perimeter wall" link.

I just researched your link. That reference is not from Dr. Wood. The person on that site said Dr. Wood had called them that. I need to see the words uttered by Dr. Wood herself calling them that, and in what context it was done. I did not see any reference to her cited words on the link you provided.

So getting back to the subject at hand, did anyone notice that in order to achieve "90% of the steel" granulizing, molecularizing, disintegrating, or whatever anyone wants to call it when steel just turns to dust - it would require no more than 6 exterior columns to survive on any one floor?

And here we have a floor with nine - and we can clearly see that more external columns are falling away INTACT.

Alas, smitten on 3 fronts.

[edit on 2-13-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by OrionStars


Get them yourself. You said you didn't care anyway in the post above. You've spent 2 pages derailing this thread over what I now will kindly characterize as a through "misunderstanding" of a basic element of the WTC's construction and I've frankly had it with you. To my eye, this is now topic derailment and a T&C violation.

You post like like a broken water main here, and persist even when proven wrong about basic things such as this. You are as implacable and impenetrable to reality as you are ill-informed. This board is not run as your soapbox nor are we your servants to provide you with links when you repeatedly demand them to disprove something that is patently untrue, simply your fantasy.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by OrionStars

If you have a personal problem with me, please send a U2U instead. In the future, please confine any snide remarks to U2U instead.

However, if you are going to attribute words to someone, please make certain the person referenced indeed uttered those words.


[edit on 13-2-2008 by OrionStars]

OMG! You just changed the whole content of this post! You originally stated that you weren't even talking to him because he wasn't the one that made the statement about Dr. Woods. You wiped your whole falacious post out and replaced it.

You are such a low life.

Enough

Further derailment of this topic will not be tolerated.

If you cannot argue with factual evidence and instead need to resort to derailment, obfustication, and the like, its time to take a break and perhaps rethink your WHOLE position.

Furthermore please review the following thread:

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Valhall


Val,

On that front, do you have any credible estimates on the actual amount of steel recovered? I've seen estimates all over the place.

And yes, this is pretty obvious, as you've only got to look at an overall site photo of the aftermath to confirm that there's a massive amount of "wheat chex" lying about, and that some of the perimeter literally peeled off in 10-15 floor sections. --Most notably toward the Winter garden, IIRC.