The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Wizayne
 




Did the Op back his story up? When I left my post, there were no links or anything.........


I apologise again to all of you for my lack of computer skills. In the absence of a link could you simply type in the name John Knapton. You will learn for example.
"Research Development & Publications
John continues to publish design papers and books on the structural design of aircraft, port and highway pavements. John was retained by BSI to draft the first British Standard on the structural design of concrete block and clay paver pavements (BS7533) and is regarded as the world’s authority in this field.

John is the Author of all four editions of the British Ports Association heavy duty pavement design manual which is used worldwide for the design of heavy duty pavements. He has developed design procedures for polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete paving and has designed over 30 pavements of area 1,000m2 to 50,000m2 throughout the United Kingdom.

John has published the definitive work on laser screeded industrial floor design and construction for fibre reinforced floors. He has written three books, all published, one on industrial floors and the remaining two on industrial external hardstandings and has also written the Civil Aviation Authority guide on the use of pavers for aircraft pavements."

There was a massive insurance payout to be made.
Lloyds needed an expert to advise them on the construction of the steel framed WTC towers.
They chose the man who is "regarded as the world’s authority" in some aspects of....
Concrete.
Hmmmmm.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
........ I have always had a suspicion that the core did have concrete in it.

You're certainly not the only one. "The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core, so that fire crews would have at least three hours to work. In fact, the cores of the towers were sheetrock over steel." There was another influential person who publicly stated he thought the cores contained concrete. Unfortunately I've forgotten who. What does the photographic evidence show at the centre of the debris pile? What protected the survivors in the 'Miracle Of Stairway B'? Is that a concrete stairwell we see in the middle of the wreckage? What do we see exploding in the photographs that show a grey protrusion standing out from the mass of whiter dust and debris? Are those individual concrete panels with explosives inside? Would exploding concrete panels explain the 'horseshoe' beams, bent without cracking? It appears the insurance money was paid for concrete panels.
I'm not in any way suggesting this invalidates anyone else's research. Multiple methods complicate analysis. The degraded condition of old inbuilt explosives would make other methods essential to produce the spectacle we saw.
The method of construction allowed for these panels to be cast with very few witnesses. How many photographs do we see of the interior of the buildings during construction? The famous WTC sunrise photo shows the core, but it doesn't tell us what the core walls are made of. There are plenty of words asserting the core walls were drywall. What does the evidence say?
The problem is this takes attention away from the Bushbaby and pinpoints the Rockefellers as the prime culprits.
Oh what's that? A black SUV just pulled up outside and some paramilitary types got out wearing matching black polo shirts with an R embroidered on the pocket. I better go and see what they want.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

The core remained standing for a few seconds after collapse. It is the grid like structure in the center. Here is another version www.youtube.com...


A very informative video. If my suggestion is correct this video shows pulverised concrete falling away from the remains of the steel frame of the core. What does the photographic evidence show at the centre of the debris pile? The material we see indistinctly in this video falling down was later photographed at much higher resolution where it landed.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver


Also, the building did not just collapse, it crumbled and disintegrated.

The photographs taken from the space station give a good idea of the amount of material that travelled upwards and drifted away. This is the problem I have with the use of the word 'collapse' to describe the disintegration of the buildings. Collapse means fall down. So much material travelled up and away it cannot be accurately called a collapse.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine


If you don't know jack, how can you say thermite was used? There is no evidence of thermite/thermate. There is only a group of people saying that it didn't collapse as they expected it to, so they claim explosives. Molten metal only came out of a level that housed a battery room for bank computer system.

NIST didn't test the steel for explosives or thermite residues. They don't mention testing the 40 acres of debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Perhaps we should test this physical evidence before we say there is no evidence of residues. I can't help thinking that saying there is no evidence is a bit like a child saying..
"I can't find my coat!"
"Well where did you look?"
"Errr..."



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If not, we can discuss why Jones' Bentham paper is self inconsistent and comes to unjustfied conclusions.

Jones, Gage, and the rest are just poster boys for a trendy movement. What will happen to their T shirt sales and celebrity status if the case is solved? They have a strong interest in endless waffle. Why don't you turn your brilliant mind to some real debate?
What testing for explosives or thermite residue did NIST carry out? How do you feel about digging up the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill and sending samples around the world for independent testing?
Digging to be done in cooperation with wtcfamiliesforproperburial.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 

You're welcome but the article of course wasn't 100% correct on the money, it was from someone else but is not "open" anymore. The competition expired in 2005.


Passionately committed to democracy, multi-millionaire Jimmy Walter, a Democratic philanthropist, announced that he would spend an extra million dollars on advertising in addition to the $1,500,000 already spent on another advertising blitz in America's most prominent newspapers and magazines

Source

Good luck.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





So how do you explain the core collapsing from floor trusses failing?


Is the core not connected to the structure???????????? All of the copmponents have to work together Anok.....




In fact how do you explain the truss failure?


I explained it as SHEAR strength on the 1 inch bolts connecting the trusses to the beam clips......I believe there is a few 5/8 inch bolts too...................

Did you know that heat also affects the atomic stability of the bolts also?

Bolts break when they are subjected to forces outside of their designed capabilities................These bolts work together and share the load of the connection...........It is pretty simple thinking really.

Thinking,,,,,,,,,,,, I feel half of you guys leave out of the equation.




As someone who works with metal, you should understand that a sagging truss, or sagging anything from heat, can not put a pulling force on the columns? You should understand why that is not how it works right?


I clearly understand that when all of the connections are properly functioning, the structure is doing what it is designed to do.......... to properly supporting the structure as a whole............

When one truss connection to the beam suddenly fails the vertical beam is no longer connected and is able to move in a horizontal motion.........even if slightly......this add shock and extra tension to the other joints........If the other joints are also weakened because of the heat, the possibilty of them not holding up is also there.................because they are subjected to forces outside of their designed capabilties..............

This is the reason we have design specifications.




In fact seeing as you work with metal do you not have the supplies to test that hypothesis, and prove that a beam between two columns, when heated up, can pull in the columns?


Does it not weaken the connections? When the connections fail, does a crap load of enrgy get suddenly transferred into the vertical I beams? What happens when heated steel gets suddenly shocked with tremendous energy, energy caused by a few truss connection failures? Not to mention this steel is supporting hundreds to thousands of tons of weight all fighting gravity.

I believe that when the connections failed the vertical I beams sprung outward ,,,from the sudden loss of the supporting load...............even if it is a few inches.........

If the vertical I beams were also damaged by the heat, then yes the could be pulled in from the tremedous weight from the trusses................

So in other words what if the trusses are not the only thing being heated up, ANok? The supporting vertical I beams are near the flames too.




I'd love to see the results of that.


I would love to see the results of any non biased tests done on this subject......

I think you are seriously trying to overthink this subject..........................

It is simple construction......

Yes, I do have pics,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes I do have diagrams.........as soon as I figure out what the hell is going on wioth ATS's new formats(that peole just cannot leave alone) I will post them,,,,,,,,,again........It says image upload temporarily unavailable.........................
edit on 18-12-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


You clearly have considerable knowledge of steel construction.
Does anyone else find it strange that Lloyds chose a concrete expert to advise them? How do insurance companies operate? Do they insist on accurate and pertinent information before parting with wheelbarrows full of gold?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


I am not saying that the "event" was not taken advantage of......Hell I even think that "they" could have possibly let it happen...........

All I am saying is that explosives were not needed to bring down the towers............

It is building construction............connections and components that have to work together in unity according to the design specifications alloted by the engineers and drafters.
edit on 18-12-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by pteridine
 

You are being pedantic and obtuse. I was referring to structural technicalities, not thermite, the proof of which was POURING off the outside of the building. Cherry pick much? Whatever.


What you said was "I'll admit to knowing Jack about anything structural or technical..." I was taking you at your poorly written word. Write much?

What was pouring out of the building is not known. If thermite were at every floor, it would have been seen more than once. The floor it was on was a battery back up floor. It could have been from the batteries or the copper bus bars. Assume much?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine


If you don't know jack, how can you say thermite was used? There is no evidence of thermite/thermate. There is only a group of people saying that it didn't collapse as they expected it to, so they claim explosives. Molten metal only came out of a level that housed a battery room for bank computer system.

NIST didn't test the steel for explosives or thermite residues. They don't mention testing the 40 acres of debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Perhaps we should test this physical evidence before we say there is no evidence of residues. I can't help thinking that saying there is no evidence is a bit like a child saying..
"I can't find my coat!"
"Well where did you look?"
"Errr..."


NIST also didn't test for termite damage or estimate the snow load on the roof. What is needed is a reason to test for something or you would have to test for everything. Look up "logical fallacies" and see which ones you have subscribed to.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine
If not, we can discuss why Jones' Bentham paper is self inconsistent and comes to unjustfied conclusions.

Jones, Gage, and the rest are just poster boys for a trendy movement. What will happen to their T shirt sales and celebrity status if the case is solved? They have a strong interest in endless waffle. Why don't you turn your brilliant mind to some real debate?
What testing for explosives or thermite residue did NIST carry out? How do you feel about digging up the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill and sending samples around the world for independent testing?
Digging to be done in cooperation with wtcfamiliesforproperburial.


Jones, Gage, and the rest are just entrepreneurs and attention deprived losers, in general. They care not about the truth but about cash and/or adulation from the fringe of the fringe. What debate would you like? The debate about how, after ten years in the ground, the samples are contaminated? That results from chemical analyses would be inconclusive?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine

The core remained standing for a few seconds after collapse. It is the grid like structure in the center. Here is another version www.youtube.com...


A very informative video. If my suggestion is correct this video shows pulverised concrete falling away from the remains of the steel frame of the core. What does the photographic evidence show at the centre of the debris pile? The material we see indistinctly in this video falling down was later photographed at much higher resolution where it landed.


You cannot determine what is falliing away from what during the collapse. As I have shown, the claim that the core was only covered with drywall was substantated by the people who built the towers and by the trapped workers who cut through it. The professor helping Lloyd's avoid the payout may be purposely confusing the issue or may just be in error.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
"Let's help a new member out" time. I guess this would be what the OP is referring to?
911scholars.ning.com...
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo


ETA Now let's see people say that a former Professor of Structural Engineering knows not what he is talking about. 5....4....3....
Disclaimer: I didn't read it all yet, doing that now...
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA


ETA2 I read the article I found (assuming it's the same one the OP is referring to) and while it's quite an old post, I must admit I was not aware of:

Knapton later went of to offer $100,000 to anyone who could explain all of the Science and Math that accounted for The Twin Tower collapses, according to the Government's Theory
edit on 17/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2


Did you read the very first line of that article?


The steel columns of the towers were melted by fire


Now, this is a load of BS, since no one has said the steel actually melted from the fires. The only ones that said and spread this bunch of malarkey, are................ wait for it....................................................

TRUTHERS!!!!


Surprised? No one in NIST, FEMA, or any reputable organization has stated that steel melted from the fires. This "engineer" should have realized this mistake, or at least done some research into it.

Remember the old saying: What do you call a student that finished last in his medical school? Doctor.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


General, we don't want to disappoint anyone, so I will make the post:

"Now let's see people say that a former Professor of Structural Engineering knows not what he is talking about. 5....4....3...."

A FORMER PROFESSOR OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING KNOWS NOT WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Maybe he is a "former professor" for a reason.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ANOK
 


Is the core not connected to the structure???????????? All of the copmponents have to work together Anok.....


Sorry but that doesn't explain it at all. There was no reason for the core to collapse from failure of the trusses.
The trusses did not hold up the core, the core held up the trusses. IF the core failed at some point it would have toppled over, but to collapse straight down, and break up into many pieces needed energy that was not available from fire and gravity.



I explained it as SHEAR strength on the 1 inch bolts connecting the trusses to the beam clips......I believe there is a few 5/8 inch bolts too...................

Did you know that heat also affects the atomic stability of the bolts also?

Bolts break when they are subjected to forces outside of their designed capabilities................These bolts work together and share the load of the connection...........It is pretty simple thinking really.

Thinking,,,,,,,,,,,, I feel half of you guys leave out of the equation.


Bolts breaking does not explain how sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns to start the collapse.

The bolts were obvioulsy more than sufficient to hold the floors up, there is no reason for them to all break instantly. It also does not explain why the core collapsed. In fact the core started to collapse first...



Also the top of the buildings was collapsing independent of the bottom, you can see the top start to crush as it drops before the bottom starts to collapse...






I clearly understand that when all of the connections are properly functioning, the structure is doing what it is designed to do.......... to properly supporting the structure as a whole............

When one truss connection to the beam suddenly fails the vertical beam is no longer connected and is able to move in a horizontal motion.........even if slightly......this add shock and extra tension to the other joints........If the other joints are also weakened because of the heat, the possibilty of them not holding up is also there.................because they are subjected to forces outside of their designed capabilties..............

This is the reason we have design specifications.


How much of the building do you think was heated to failure by the fire?

How much steel was still able to hold the extra weight that would have been transferred to it?

Do you understand factors of safety, and how much steel could actually fail before global collapse could commence? Failure of one or two trusses is not going to cause complete failure.




Does it not weaken the connections? When the connections fail, does a crap load of enrgy get suddenly transferred into the vertical I beams? What happens when heated steel gets suddenly shocked with tremendous energy, energy caused by a few truss connection failures? Not to mention this steel is supporting hundreds to thousands of tons of weight all fighting gravity.


Weakening the connection is not what NIST claims is it? They claim the trusses pulled in the columns breaking them. Also no, the connections would not necessarily break either. You seem to assume the connection were all extremely weak.


I believe that when the connections failed the vertical I beams sprung outward ,,,from the sudden loss of the supporting load...............even if it is a few inches.........


But that is all just assumptions. You first have to prove the connections could fail.


If the vertical I beams were also damaged by the heat, then yes the could be pulled in from the tremedous weight from the trusses................

So in other words what if the trusses are not the only thing being heated up, ANok? The supporting vertical I beams are near the flames too.


Sorry but ONE hour of fire is not enough to cause the massive box columns to heat up enough for a smaller lighter truss, also heated up, to be able to pull it in. You obvioulsy do not understand how it works. When steel is heated it expands. The first thing the trusses would do it push outwards against the columns, IF the trusses could effect the columns they would have been pushed out. Because the heated truss could not push the columns out they sag, which means they also could not have pulled the columns in either.

BTW no need to wait for ATS you can host pics at many different places such as...photobucket.com...://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v117/Helgstrand/

Also I am not looking for pics, I want to see a demonstration of a sagging truss pulling in rigidly fixed box columns.
Until you can demonstrate that hypothesis you will never convince me it is possible.

edit on 12/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01


It is building construction............connections and components that have to work together in unity according to the design specifications alloted by the engineers and drafters.

The length of time it took for these components to become debris and a dust cloud is the issue that is not explained by gravitational collapse. The size of the dust cloud, visible with the naked eye from the space station, and the average particle size of the debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill are indicators of extraordinary demolition.
If it fell down quickly it would be in big lumps. If it was reduced to dust and small pieces it would take much longer. This is why NIST can only ask 'Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?' We all know the real FAQ is 'Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the transformation of the buildings into dust and debris within seconds.' And the answer is 'NIST doesn't know, NIST didn't look'. An investigation into the destruction of the WTC towers that doesn't investigate the destruction of the WTC towers raises a few questions about the events of the day and everything that has been done in the name of 9/11.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What is needed is a reason to test for something...

I've never watched any of the 'Truther' videos. Don't get me wrong when I say this. As an indicator of the interest in this controversy, referring to Loose Change "Coverage for the film increased in 2006 with the recut release having airings on U.S. and European television stations and over 4 million views online in four months, leading Vanity Fair to say it could be the first internet blockbuster." That was years ago, whats the situation now? What concerns me more is the attitude of the British Military, those I've spoken to are of the opinion that the towers were demolished. Bomb disposal technicians having particularly strong views on the subject. When the estimated cost of testing the debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill for residues and calculating the energy required to transform the buildings into that debris is compared to the cost of this loss of trust worldwide....... Is that not reason enough to take a few fairly simple steps? If these simple steps find everything is above board, trust will be restored.
Is there some fear that these tests will prove extraordinary demolition?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What debate would you like? The debate about how, after ten years in the ground, the samples are contaminated? That results from chemical analyses would be inconclusive?

The average particle size indicates extraordinary demolition. Testing for residues is only one of several ways to learn from the condition of the physical evidence.
Interesting that you should draw attention to contamination of the debris. Some members of wtcfamiliesforproperburial have noted tyre tracks going backwards and forwards over the grave site. I'm sure the sanitation department can tell us why.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join