AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


You forget that the core columns were segments that were bolted together. In fact during the investigation, some core beams were bent, while many showed failures at the connections. The bolts holding each column to the other sheered or snapped apart in the collapse. This is what happened to the core.


I'm sorry, but you are making a new theory because NIST does not say this. You understand that the joints of the core columns were staggered, right? (i.e. not on the same plane) You understand that the NIST report does not show significant damage to the core columns, right?



Also, the floor trusses on each end showed sheering as well.


This is entirely incorrect. The floor truss connections at the outer walls sheared. The floor truss connections at the core columns did not. So, my question for several years now is please explain how that could happen when we are watching the core fall? Wouldn't that mean the core brought the floors down? It pulled the floors down and sheared them from their connections at the outer walls, but the connections at the inner core did not shear.

Sorry, but nothing you've said here matches the NIST report.




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GenRadek
There was virtually zero evidence of any blast damage done anywhere on the pieces. It would have been very obvious to any ground zero workers.

You can't possibly say that without inspecting each of the thousands upon thousands of pieces of steel in all 3 buildings of the WTC. That stuff was scooped up so fast there was no way to inspect each piece. Furthermore, nobody was looking for blast damage and add on top of that, everything was covered in dust and other debris to further hide the blast damage that nobody was looking for. You're just making assumptions right now based on zero facts.

One thing is for certain, you can make up all the assumptions you like to continuously explain away the obvious, but so far, not a single person has conclusively countered my arguments.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]


Your signature says it all. I don't think its possible to debunk any of the facts/scientific evidence that has been presented in this tread. It really amazes me the ignorance that comes in here, sees the evidence, yet still comes up with some sort of argument. Great thread man.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


You know thats funny, cause in the FEMA report which observed and also studied the debris afterward noted this very thing. Most of the core columns showed signs of sheering of the base plates where the bolts were or severe deformation.

www.fema.gov...

And you know, I am reading the NIST report right now, and they do mention that a few of the core columns recovered showed exactly what i said. The seats of the trusses were either sheered off or deformed. Nope, still dont see any blast marks or mentions of any blast marks. The ends did show bolt failures too. And guess what else? They also recovered the ends of floor trusses and guess what they showed? The bolts had failed! In many cases the bolt connection areas failed. The hole was there, but the bolt wasnt. Ergo, bolt failure. Its right there in the NIST report. Read it for yourself. Chapters 4 and 5.

wtc.nist.gov...

Also, we all saw that short instance of the core standing in both collapses, for about 15 seconds after initial collapse. What became to be known as the spires. That was the core. Which means the floors and exterior columns fell first, with some parts of the core with it. But there was a large section of the core that survived the initial collapse, but then later fell also. And yes, the floors showed shearing at both ends of the trusses, or at least bolt failure.



[edit on 5/20/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So where are the workers that toiled for months at Ground Zero, which were inside everyday working to clear out the debris mentioning they saw blasted steel beams? The hundreds of steel workers, fire fighters, search and rescue teams, debris cleaners, that were directly handling the debris every day? Where are their accounts of finding beams with obvious signs of blast damage? Or any one at Fresh Kills landfill that handled the largest pieces of the debris? Nobody noticed anything? Not even those that assisted from the demolition companies noticed any beams or evidence of blast damage? and while we are at it, why didnt anyone find a blasting cap or some shred of demolition device debris inside? They didnt find any of it among the debris they were searching for human remains?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


You know thats funny, cause in the FEMA report which observed and also studied the debris afterward noted this very thing. Most of the core columns showed signs of sheering of the base plates where the bolts were or severe deformation.

www.fema.gov...

And you know, I am reading the NIST report right now, and they do mention that a few of the core columns recovered showed exactly what i said. The seats of the trusses were either sheered off or deformed. Nope, still dont see any blast marks or mentions of any blast marks. The ends did show bolt failures too. And guess what else? They also recovered the ends of floor trusses and guess what they showed? The bolts had failed! In many cases the bolt connection areas failed. The hole was there, but the bolt wasnt. Ergo, bolt failure. Its right there in the NIST report. Read it for yourself. Chapters 4 and 5.

wtc.nist.gov...

I will be expecting an apology from you for lying, and claiming I lied. Its not nice to lie.


First of all, take notice, that you never ever ever accuse me of lying.

Next, take notice that I have never ever said anything about blast marks, so I have no idea why you are talking to me about them.

Probably more important is that I never apologize to people simply because they are wrong. That's something you have to rectify yourself.

I believe this would be the fourth point...why are you linking a FEMA document that is a second-hand interpretation of the official document of the WTC collapse analysis? The official document (that would be the one you are currently defending) is the NIST report. Do not submit to me second-hand interpretations of the NIST report. If you want to talk to me about this issue, you will stay within the confines of the NIST report. It is required. And there is no negotiation on this point. You will either make your point within the document you are defending, or you will STFU...because that's the restrictions placed on those raising issues with that document.

At point 5 we have the statement you make "And you know, I am reading the NIST report right now, and they do mention that a few of the core columns recovered showed exactly what i said. The seats of the trusses were either sheered off or deformed."

I'm not finding that. I'm not finding that within the NIST report (MOST IMPORTANTLY), but I'm also not finding that within the second-hand document you linked.

I believe we are now at point 6 - you are misinterpreting the second-hand FEMA review of the NIST report. You are taking the portion of the FEMA report that is discussing failure of the floor truss connections at the outer columns and trying to say it is talking about failure at the inner columns. This would be wrong. If you have absolutely any doubt about what I'm trying to correct you on, get with some one (obviously other than me) that has more than two shakes of a rat's ass experience in reading technical documents and have them explain it to you. (Here's a hint when you're going forward - any time you read "column tree" you're talking about the outer wall columns, not the core columns. There was no "tree" in the core column structure.)

So basically, where we set right now is, you are wrong on several important technical points, you're not going to get an apology from me, and you owe me one for calling me a liar.

You're not doing very well right now by my accounting.

[edit on 5-20-2009 by Valhall]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So where are the workers that toiled for months at Ground Zero, which were inside everyday working to clear out the debris mentioning they saw blasted steel beams? The hundreds of steel workers, fire fighters, search and rescue teams, debris cleaners, that were directly handling the debris every day? Where are their accounts of finding beams with obvious signs of blast damage? Or any one at Fresh Kills landfill that handled the largest pieces of the debris? Nobody noticed anything? Not even those that assisted from the demolition companies noticed any beams or evidence of blast damage? and while we are at it, why didnt anyone find a blasting cap or some shred of demolition device debris inside? They didnt find any of it among the debris they were searching for human remains?


Can you list the people who are trained in forensic examination of steel samples in a pile to determine whether blasts were used or not?

Were they tasked with examining steel?

The individuals at Fresh Kills were tasked with looking for human remains and personal possessions, not the condition of steel. See the FBI's Fresh Kills article.

Can you produce a scientific report disproving the use of explosives or some explosive variant due to forensic chemical testing of the evidence? You can't? Oh well then that is certainly a valid line of investigation.

With regards to WTC 7:



Debris from the WTC 7 was removed without investigators having the chance to examine the wreckage at the scene to help determine the cause of failure. Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13 "Jonathan Barnett, PhD: Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7. - History Channel / Modern Marvels [Video: 911podcasts.com]

Got a photograph of every beam and every column? Nahhh didn't think so....

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Once again you have lied about what is in the NIST report.
I have posted the link to the report I speak of. I have even told you what chapters to look in to find what I said. I cannot copy and paste from the document to show you, but if you bother even looking into it there is a whole section on how they found the ends of the floor trusses, the cores, and the connections. They are all there.
And I dont know how when they say, there were observed failures at boths sides of the floor truss and shearing of the seat on both sides, or the bolts, how that = only the exterior columns showed signs of shearing or bolt failure.
I dont know how you keep missing this. Either you have not read it and are just making general statements taken from other "truth" sites, or you dont understand what you are reading.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You are confusing the issue. The physical evidence NIST found, and their hypothesis, are two completely different things, and in fact they contradict each other.

The core columns WERE disconnected from the trusses, and notice that no one has said that they weren't. BUT, there is no mechanism whatsoever to explain this in NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis. The shearing failure was on the other end of the trusses, so there should have been nothing to consistently fail the other end unless an addition mechanism is defined, which there wasn't.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


Once again you have lied about what is in the NIST report.
I have posted the link to the report I speak of. I have even told you what chapters to look in to find what I said. I cannot copy and paste from the document to show you, but if you bother even looking into it there is a whole section on how they found the ends of the floor trusses, the cores, and the connections. They are all there.
And I dont know how when they say, there were observed failures at boths sides of the floor truss and shearing of the seat on both sides, or the bolts, how that = only the exterior columns showed signs of shearing or bolt failure.
I dont know how you keep missing this. Either you have not read it and are just making general statements taken from other "truth" sites, or you dont understand what you are reading.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by GenRadek]


Since you seem to enjoy that NIST report so much, I thought I'd give you a link to an audio interview which was conducted with Dr. Shyam Sunder, who was the lead WTC 7 investigator for NIST. This intervew was conducted by Allen Rees from noliesradio.org, and, well, just listen to it. The guy seems to have a likely excuse for everything, doesnt he?

Interview

The NIST report was bogus from the start, and even the final report still contains numbers that they made up to fit their model - a model which they are yet to realease the numbers for so the rest of the world can verify their claims.

I'm sure its a great read though.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


Once again you have lied about what is in the NIST report.
I have posted the link to the report I speak of. I have even told you what chapters to look in to find what I said. I cannot copy and paste from the document to show you, but if you bother even looking into it there is a whole section on how they found the ends of the floor trusses, the cores, and the connections. They are all there.
And I dont know how when they say, there were observed failures at boths sides of the floor truss and shearing of the seat on both sides, or the bolts, how that = only the exterior columns showed signs of shearing or bolt failure.
I dont know how you keep missing this. Either you have not read it and are just making general statements taken from other "truth" sites, or you dont understand what you are reading.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by GenRadek]


Why do you keep accusing me of lying?

wtc.nist.gov...

Page 42 of the report (Page x1 of the pdf)

"Structural Impact Damage - Floor Trusses and Seats


In both towers, most of the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter truss seats) below the impact floors were either missing or bent downward.

...Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...Failure of the connection between the floor truss and the perimeter panel floor truss connectors was typically a result of tab plate weld and bolt failure.


Page 80 of the report (Page 128 of the pdf)

"Exterior Wall Seats or Floor Truss Connectors"


Of the 28 [exterior] floor truss connectors at or below the impact floors for WTC 1, 93 percent were either missing or bent downwards...Comparable results were found for WTC 2 where 88 percent of the [exterior] truss connectors below the impact floors were bent down or missing...


Page 92 of the report (Page 140 of the pdf)

"Core Channels and Truss Seats"


Of the 24 channels...twenty-one pieces of channel had seats or remnants of seats attached. Over 90 percent of the seats (31 total) were still intact with the majority of these somewhat deformed. Only two seats had been ripped completely from the channel at the welded joint between the seat and the channel...Half of the retained seats were observed to have both bolt holes still intact, while the other half had at least one bolt hole ripped out.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


wtc.nist.gov...

You didnt go down to page 199 in the document and after which gave a break down of the connection failures

[edit on 5/22/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


wtc.nist.gov...

You didnt go down to page 199 in the document and after which gave a break down of the connection failures

[edit on 5/22/2009 by GenRadek]


What are you kidding me? It's a repeat of what I just posted!

From page 199


From the 21 channels with seats, a total of 31 seats were available for inspection...Over 90 percent of the seats were still intact with the majority of these somewhat deformed. Only two seats were observed to be ripped completely from the channel at the welded joint between the seat and the channel...Half of the retained seats were observed to have both bolt holes still intact, while the other half had a minimum of one bolt hole ripped out.


Now, what good did that do? I already quoted every bit of that from the report. *see above post*



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


head down to page 211 on the trusses and top chords of the floor trusses:


The majority of upper chord connectors (fig 5-2a) were found to have bolt failures, i.e., the bolt holes on the on the connectors were still intact.


So why is it hard to understand that during the collapse, the bolts were failing as a result of the collapses? That during the collapse, the exterior columns collapsed along with the floor trusses failing at the end, with seats being removed completely, while over all at both ends there is plenty of evidence of bolt failures. The core didnt have to collapse first to do that, as the floor collapsing itself would have been enough to severe the bolts at the core.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Valhall
 


head down to page 211 on the trusses and top chords of the floor trusses:


The majority of upper chord connectors (fig 5-2a) were found to have bolt failures, i.e., the bolt holes on the on the connectors were still intact.


So why is it hard to understand that during the collapse, the bolts were failing as a result of the collapses? That during the collapse, the exterior columns collapsed along with the floor trusses failing at the end, with seats being removed completely, while over all at both ends there is plenty of evidence of bolt failures. The core didnt have to collapse first to do that, as the floor collapsing itself would have been enough to severe the bolts at the core.


So, now you want to talk about trusses, but imply it applies to the seats?

I'm not talking about trusses, I'm talking about seats. And why would you even want to bring up the trusses? The NIST explicitly states they were in such a balled up mess they couldn't tell where any of them went within the building prior to collapse, and they specifically state there was no way to tell when the damage occurred (i.e. possibly not part of the collapse sequence, but part of the damage after collapse had occurred.) They even go further to state that because they were so lightweight the damage could have occurred during extraction from the debris pile.

Basically, they state they can't tell a damned thing. Are you stating you can? I don't know anyone who makes conclusions based on the truss material. And I know for certain, I haven't.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
www.ae911truth.org...

as of today:

705 architectural and engineering professionals
and 3816 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
on the anniversary of the JFK assassination, "969 architectural and engineering professionals and 5429 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."

it was 640 when this thread started, 8 months ago.

just for posterity, i'll keep bumping this thread as the number becomes more impressive (which it is bound to do).



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I think you mean 6 months ago and if almost 1000 isn't impressuve enough.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


i did say, "when this thread started"

OP was : "posted on 24-4-2009"

april (24th)
may
june
july
august
september
october
november (22nd)

nope.
i mean 8 months.
good news, nonetheless!
however, if we discuss this more deeply, the thread will keep bumpin', lol!
perhaps the conference was 6 months ago.





top topics
 
20
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join