Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 262

Thread: WTC Core Details[W:183]

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Seen
    05-24-18 @ 11:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    NIST was neither scientific nor honest in its analysis. It started with a conclusion and then fudged facts to justify the conclusion.

    NIST were a bunch of outright liars. They were caught in the headlights a number of times and it is apparent that they were not good liars, just prolific liars.

    Evans was described as "almost like a brother" to Dubya.
    What a thing to have to live with!!

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Seen
    05-24-18 @ 11:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    ... How or what affected the core?
    The massive subterranean explosions described by Andre Rousseau in,



    Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New
    York on September 11, 2001?
    By Dr. André Rousseau1

    ...

    First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the
    seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that
    identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of
    identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic
    sources of different magnitudes.

    We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the
    cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.

    According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose
    a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the
    presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a subaerial explosion.
    The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.


    The witnesses and video observation confirm our conclusions of subaerial
    explosions close to the times of aircraft impacts on WTC1 and WTC2, a strong
    subterranean explosion closely correlated with the WTC1 collapse, and subaerial
    explosions closely correlated with the WTC2 and WTC7 collapses, WTC7 not having
    been hit by a plane. As a consequence, we draw the conclusion that the three buildings
    were demolished by a controlled process.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf


  3. #73
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    22,124

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by camlok View Post
    The massive subterranean explosions described by Andre Rousseau in,
    This is another perfect example of how the official story fails under close examination. Myth, fable or propaganda, the official conspiracy theory fails at every turn. Impossible phone calls, impossible aeronautical claims, impossible physics, the story is a hoax.

  4. #74
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Seen
    05-24-18 @ 11:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,268

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    This is another perfect example of how the official story fails under close examination. Myth, fable or propaganda, the official conspiracy theory fails at every turn. Impossible phone calls, impossible aeronautical claims, impossible physics, the story is a hoax.
    This is exactly why the Zero Evidence Club doesn't ever want to talk about the USGOCT, because they know full well that there is no evidence to discuss, no evidence to support it.

    Now they are attacking gerrycan in the same manner they always attack everyone else.

    As soon as there is a damning point made by anyone showing the totally holey USGOCT, gerrycan is advancing some in this thread, the ZEC goes to inane distractions to try to knock the inquisitor off his game.

    There is the front line crew who pretends that they are really interested in discussing the events and science of 911, but all they are doing is their time honored distractions and diversions. Then there is the background crew, snickering and making rude remarks, totally off topic and containing ZERO science, ZERO evidence and ZERO discussion.

    To gerrycan's great credit he is fending them off beautifully.

  5. #75
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    07-16-18 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    I am saying that NIST's scenario is an impossibility. The sagging trusses wouldn't have the purchase required on the spandrels (which would also distribute the lateral pull)
    Can you explain why the sagging trusses WOULD NOT provide enough purchase on the spandrels to pull the perimeter columns inward, but the core dropping WOULD provide enough purchase for the trusses to pull the perimeter columns in?

  6. #76
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    07-16-18 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    Here's a typical shear plate showing how the slab extended right into the core structure.
    Attachment 67228411
    Can you tell me what drawing is making reference to this particular shear plate detail, drawing 6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)? I am trying to follow along with what you're presenting. Do you believe those large "crosshatched" rectangles are core columns shown in section? If so, that is wrong because the core columns at that level were I-beams.

  7. #77
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,454

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
    Can you tell me what drawing is making reference to this particular shear plate detail, drawing 6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)? I am trying to follow along with what you're presenting. Do you believe those large "crosshatched" rectangles are core columns shown in section? If so, that is wrong because the core columns at that level were I-beams.
    They are core columns. You can tell that because they are different sizes.
    The transitions to "I" beams is something I presume you are taking from NIST's diagram with the transition floors in brackets ?

    These are shear plates and are constant throughout. Their function is to extend the floor system fotprint firther into the core making them composite.

    I could probably tell what core columns these are by their relative size and go to the core column schedule and let you know what they would be at the particular height if that's important to you, but the fact remains that the shear plates were a constant. As for the typical drawing, it's most probably C 504A which would be a 14WF264/219 depending on what floor you wanted the detail for.

    Are you trying to saty that the drawing I posted does not apply t the floors we are talking about in terms of the shear plate detail ?

  8. #78
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    07-16-18 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Here is the shear plate drawing in question that I marked up.
    ShearPlate.jpg

    The red rectangles encompass the core BOX columns correct? We are looking at a plan view of the shear plates and those core BOX columns are shown as "sectioned" because of the cross hatching. My point is that the core columns on the 94 floor (and floors above) BOX columns, but IBeams.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    They are core columns. You can tell that because they are different sizes.
    Yes, they are core BOX columns.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    The transitions to "I" beams is something I presume you are taking from NIST's diagram with the transition floors in brackets ?
    No, I am looking at drawing A-A-150, 94th floor core plan found here: 9-11 Research. They show IBEAMS, not BOX columns for the core columns.
    94thFloorCorePlan.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    These are shear plates and are constant throughout. Their function is to extend the floor system fotprint firther into the core making them composite.
    Maybe, maybe not. I want to check your work. I'm not taking your word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    I could probably tell what core columns these are by their relative size and go to the core column schedule and let you know what they would be at the particular height if that's important to you,
    Please do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    but the fact remains that the shear plates were a constant.
    Maybe, maybe not. If they are, I want to make sure you are referencing the correct ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    As for the typical drawing, it's most probably C 504A which would be a 14WF264/219 depending on what floor you wanted the detail for.
    "Probably" doesn't cut it here. Please get a screenshot of the drawing that references the shear plate drawing you have posted (6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)) so I can see for myself. I am looking in particular for the 94th floor. I want to see the reference for the shear plates on drawing (6-AB7-22 (or 2.2), in the green rectangle in the first picture I posted above)) from a drawing showing that it shouldbe used for floor 94 or stating that drawing (6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)) should be used as typical for the whole building.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    Are you trying to saty that the drawing I posted does not apply t the floors we are talking about in terms of the shear plate detail ?
    I am trying to confirm what you say is true. Again, I'm not taking your word for it.

  9. #79
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    07-16-18 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    I could probably tell what core columns these are by their relative size and go to the core column schedule and let you know what they would be at the particular height if that's important to you, but the fact remains that the shear plates were a constant. As for the typical drawing, it's most probably C 504A which would be a 14WF264/219 depending on what floor you wanted the detail for.

    Are you trying to saty that the drawing I posted does not apply t the floors we are talking about in terms of the shear plate detail ?
    Just to be clear.

    The drawing of the shear plate is a detail drawing.

    There has to be a reference to that drawing somewhere on another drawing directing the engineer/construction working to that particular shear plate drawing. It's either a general note that states something like "For all shear plates between perimeter core columns, see drawing 6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)" or maybe on a drawing for floor 94 there is a detail reference that states "For this shear plate detail, see drawing 6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)".

    I want a screen shot of that reference and what drawing it came from. You using words like "probably" when reference drawings tells me you are making some pretty big assumptions and have not seen a reference to that particular drawing for the shear plate.

  10. #80
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    07-16-18 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,098

    Re: WTC Core Details

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    I could probably tell what core columns these are by their relative size and go to the core column schedule and let you know what they would be at the particular height if that's important to you, but the fact remains that the shear plates were a constant. As for the typical drawing, it's most probably C 504A which would be a 14WF264/219 depending on what floor you wanted the detail for.
    Another question gerrycan.

    You obviously have the drawings correct?

    Are there any drawings in that group either before or after the shear plate drawing 6-AB7-22 (or 2.2)? Like drawing before with the number 6-AB7-23 (or 2.3) or maybe after with the number 6-AB7-24 (0r 2.4)? How about screenshots of those please?

Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •