• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC Core Details[W:183]

Re: WTC Core Details

Let's just stick to the reality of the situation instead.

Gerrycan. On the bottom chord. Is the component I circled in red behind the angle of the bottom chord or outside it (towards us).
Bottom chord is typically 2 angles but we can return to that.

Here's the long and short core ends from the booklet to refresh your memory, save you having to take my word for it.

View attachment 67229089

Here is the short span core end in reality.

View attachment 67229090

You can mark on both where you are saying the angle piece is if you like, but I would say that the booklet would appear to be exactly correct in it's depiction of a short span truss connection at the core end - do we agree ?

If not mark on the pictures where you think they differ.

You need to fix your post. The links to the attachments don't lead anywhere.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Let's just stick to the reality of the situation instead.
Why'd you get the damper information so wrong? Funny how you skipped right over that.

;)
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Why'd you get the damper information so wrong? Funny how you skipped right over that.

;)

The point there is that the end piece is depicted the same on both ends as round bar on NIST's diagram. Glad you noticed that./ I'll try to fix that post for you.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Bottom chord is typically 2 angles but we can return to that.
No need to return. I stated that the round bar is sandwiched between two angles. There are two "trusses" set right next to each other per the Section X-X in the drawing below.
fig-B-8.jpg
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Gerrycan. On the bottom chord. Is the component I circled in red behind the angle of the bottom chord or outside it (towards us).





Sure!:2razz:

Here is the booklet showing the core end connections. Note the short span one.
lngshrt.jpg

Here is the short span connection at the core end in reality.

SS core end CIRC.jpg

Point out where you think they differ.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The point there is that the end piece is depicted the same on both ends as round bar on NIST's diagram. Glad you noticed that./ I'll try to fix that post for you.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
No, the point is, you thought the component you circled in green in the photo below was the damper! You messed up AGAIN!
ang rb HL2.jpg
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I circled the bottom chord connection to it yes. The element is mainly out of shot.

I accept what you're saying there, but it does show the connection between the bottom chord to where the angle is.

ADD Here it is in yellow so we are clear that this is the part you mean.
yellow flat.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: WTC Core Details

I circled the bottom chord connection to it yes. The element is mainly out of shot.

I accept what you're saying there, but it does show the connection between the bottom chord to where the angle is.
So you agree that your two 1964 drawings do not match the photo?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

What's the compnent circled in red made out of Gamolon ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

What's the compnent circled in red made out of Gamolon ?
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? As I have said many times before, it's round bar. Your drawings from 1964 to not show that. They show angles as has been proven.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I circled the bottom chord connection to it yes. The element is mainly out of shot.

I accept what you're saying there, but it does show the connection between the bottom chord to where the angle is.

ADD Here it is in yellow so we are clear that this is the part you mean.
View attachment 67229099
Did you get this wrong gerrycan?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? As I have said many times before, it's round bar. Your drawings from 1964 to not show that. They show angles as has been proven.

That's just inane. The element in the booklet is similar to that to the left of it - round bar. I'm dancing n the end of that pin any longer. Ends.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Did you get this wrong gerrycan?

I've posted it in yellow for you. I know you're desperate for a win" here Gamolon, to make up for your 3 year debate about studs in WTC7, but come on. Get real lad.

I have to get going. I'll catch up with ya soon. Enjoy your weekend.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I have to get going. I'll catch up with ya soon. Enjoy your weekend.
You do the same.

When you get back, maybe you can explain the following:

1. Why you circled the wrong component when identifying the dampers
2. Why you confused the long/short span trusses in some photos
3. Why you thought the knuckles above the decking came from the bridge/transverse truss
4. Why you thought the 1964 drawings depict round bar when they show angles

Just a few things. One can hope eh?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

That's just inane. The element in the booklet is similar to that to the left of it - round bar. I'm dancing n the end of that pin any longer. Ends.
Take it to your buddy Tony and ask him gerrycan. Maybe he can explain it to you.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Take it to your buddy Tony and ask him gerrycan. Maybe he can explain it to you.

I don't feel the need to bother a guy like tony with your inane BS.

You take a long and hard look at yourself. And in the meantime you can look off. You silly looker. :lamo
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I don't feel the need to bother a guy like tony with your inane BS.
You got that wrong. It's YOUR inane BS. He'll just look at your garbage and say, "What are you getting yourself into now!" I mean, that's what you do right? Run to Tony when you paint yourself in a corner due to your lack of knowledge on the subject right?

You take a long and hard look at yourself. And in the meantime you can look off. You silly looker. :lamo
Awwwwww... Gerrycan, I sense some hostility. I thought we had a breakthrough and were becoming friends? :2razz:
 
Re: WTC Core Details

You got that wrong. It's YOUR inane BS. He'll just look at your garbage and say, "What are you getting yourself into now!" I mean, that's what you do right? Run to Tony when you paint yourself in a corner due to your lack of knowledge on the subject right?


Awwwwww... Gerrycan, I sense some hostility. I thought we had a breakthrough and were becoming friends? :2razz:

I thought that you were teaching him.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I thought that you were teaching him.
I thought so too. I guess not. Every time he's shown that he's wrong, he jumps onto some other point. Seems to be a pattern.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I thought so too. I guess not. Every time he's shown that he's wrong, he jumps onto some other point. Seems to be a pattern.

I find it easy to admit to a mistake but I'm not a truther.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I find it easy to admit to a mistake but I'm not a truther.

I just thought I would check to see if you zyzygy, a well known conspiracy theorist who supports the USGOCT, had offered any evidence for said conspiracy theory.

Nope. Nothing, Zilch. Nada. Zero. As always, no evidence for your evidence free USGOCT.

Carry on keeping your perfect record intact.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

You got that wrong. It's YOUR inane BS. He'll just look at your garbage and say, "What are you getting yourself into now!" I mean, that's what you do right? Run to Tony when you paint yourself in a corner due to your lack of knowledge on the subject right?

Please don't conflate my views with Tony's. That's unfair. For a start I don't think he would get into a week long debate with you about round bar Vs angle.
I'm comfortable with what I have posted, and despite your desperation for some kind of "win" here, I don't think you have quite ealised what it is I am saying.

For example - the NIST diagram shows round bar at both ends. That was why it was posted, and I knew you'd bite.


Awwwwww... Gerrycan, I sense some hostility. I thought we had a breakthrough and were becoming friends? :2razz:
We are, we are. Please don't mistake my banter for hostility. It's not meant that way, I promise.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

.
I'm comfortable with what I have posted, and despite your desperation for some kind of "win" here, I don't think you have quite ealised what it is I am saying.

For example - the NIST diagram shows round bar at both ends. That was why it was posted, and I knew you'd bite.

Even when these folks know full well what it is that a poster is saying, they twist it all around in order to deflect from the reality they don't want to face.

That is the famous distractions and diversion routine of the Zero Evidence Club.

These folks, there are about four of them, know full well that the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory [USGOCT] has no evidence to support it, while there is much hard science, numerous facts and the myriad impossibilities of the USGOCT itself that make it simply a fable.

It takes a special kind of evil in people to support the kind of deep evil that pulled off the events of 9/11.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Please don't conflate my views with Tony's. That's unfair.
I'm not conflating your views with Tony. I am simply saying you probably run to him when you have engineering questions. Go ask him what is represented on your 1964 drawings. If he is honest, he will give you an answer that you won't like.

For a start I don't think he would get into a week long debate with you about round bar Vs angle.
I am not asking for a week long debate with Tony. Besides, it wouldn't take that long. All you need to do is present him with the 1964 drawing and ask him if it shows angle of round bar. Simple.

I'm comfortable with what I have posted, and despite your desperation for some kind of "win" here, I don't think you have quite ealised what it is I am saying.
Your claims are wrong because what you are basing them on is wrong.

For example - the NIST diagram shows round bar at both ends. That was why it was posted, and I knew you'd bite.
And your 1964 drawings, which you tried to use to to show what was installed, do not. Plain and simple. I asked you a simple question and you balked at it. So here it is again. Are the 1964 drawings you posted of the trusses and accurate representation of what was installed?

Also, is the NIST drawing of the truss the same component-wise as the truss/es in the 1964 drawings? Yes or no?

We are, we are. Please don't mistake my banter for hostility. It's not meant that way, I promise.
And I say the same to you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom