WTC Core Details[W:183]

[mike2810]

Re: WTC Core Details

You didn't see fires? How long did those fires burn?

I presented that to camlock is some thread. In his world the presence of fires is not evidence . lol.

 

[mike2810]

Re: WTC Core Details

Actually, the USGOCT conspiracy theorists have had a long pass from providing evidence - ie they have never. They have never provided any evidence for the totally nutty, totally against all science "fire induced collapse".

You just proved my point. You are incapable of separating a " fire induced collapse" explanation from what you call USGCT. It seems you are also incapable of separating out the different controlled demolition explanations. If you could you would have stated which ones you find as not true.

Fire in a building by itself does not prove that fire may cause a collapse. It is all of the evidence that needs to be considered to form a possible explanation for the building failure. The "evidence" you site is far from being widely accepted. Much of what you present is suspect as being the correct interpretation of that "evidence". Even when pointed out to you that Gage misrepresented slag as evidence of nanothermite use ( links were provided).

It is interesting how so many professional journals have steered clear of what Harrit paid to have published.

So camlock, provide a link to the evidence supported proven controlled demolition explanation you accept.

 

[camlok]

There was no secret nano thermite found in the dust... where did you get this bit of mis information.

You don't even know about the US military scientists' development of nanothermite?!! WOW!!

Harrit et al.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2
, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4
, Frank M. Legge5
,
Daniel Farnsworth2
, Gregg Roberts6
, James R. Gourley7
and Bradley R. Larsen3
1
Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4
9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5
Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7
International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

I presented that to camlock is some thread. In his world the presence of fires is not evidence . lol.

That is so profound, mike. What does it even mean?

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

You just proved my point. You are incapable of separating a " fire induced collapse" explanation from what you call USGCT.

Your writing is completely discombobulated. You are making no sense at all. The USGOCT is the one that has lamely attempted to describe the "fire induced collapses" of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. They failed completely, as does the entire USGOCT.

Fire in a building by itself does not prove that fire may cause a collapse. It is all of the evidence that needs to be considered to form a possible explanation for the building failure.

And as always, not a speck of evidence from you.

The "evidence" you site[sic] is far from being widely accepted.

The "scientist", with his ponderous but empty statements, can't even spell.

And in all that nonsense not a lick of evidence.

 

[camlok]

You don't know what a proof is.... and you know nothing about fire science, structural engineering.

There was no secret nano thermite found in the dust... where did you get this bit of mis information.

You're uninformed, uneducated in technical matters.. a poor observer and hate the government.

It is a waste of time to engage in discussion with someone like you.

repeating AE bullet points does not impress me.

I know that there are myriad total impossibilities found within the USGOCT that make it an impossible story.

I know that when a person goes into a rant just because his bubble has been burst, the rant is just a rant. The "hate the government" is especially telling, isn't it, mike?

 

[mike2810]

Re: WTC Core Details

Your writing is completely discombobulated. You are making no sense at all. The USGOCT is the one that has lamely attempted to describe the "fire induced collapses" of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. They failed completely, as does the entire USGOCT.



And as always, not a speck of evidence from you.




The "scientist", with his ponderous but empty statements, can't even spell.

And in all that nonsense not a lick of evidence.

A sure sign you have nothing is when you play the spelling police card.

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

A sure sign you have nothing is when you play the spelling police card.

That is a ludicrous notion. Pointing out a spelling error of yours doesn't mean what you suggest at all. And you know this.

There was nothing from you in your own post, mike. That is stunning hypocrisy.

A guy who thinks he has the smarts to partake in these discussions about 9/11 really ought to be as aware of spelling as he thinks he is about 9/11.

M-W:
Definition of sic
: intentionally so written —used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original said he seed [sic] it all

And no evidence in this post of yours either.

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

Can't debate the explanations for the collapse of the towers when the parties don't even agree on the facts and observations. I am referring to the statement at the speed of collapse of the twin towers which DID not show acceleration but a terminal velocity of about 100' per second which is about 65mph.... or the fact that fires raged in plane strike zones of the twins until they collapsed.

I don't rely on NIST... I rely on my observations....and those who have provided time motion studies of the video... and my own knowledge as an architect and the actual structures of those buildings.

My analysis is based on the observed movements.. such as the sequence of the collapse of the 7wtc roof structures.

You on the other hand repeat the same bullet points Gage was pushing when I served on his board back in 2009/2010. more than 15 years and there is no coherent engineered destruction thesis... Even Niels Harrit admitted it would required 100 tons of it per floor. I've listened to all manner of uninformed ignorant statements about the collapses from anti official narrative agitators.

Gage and his people can't even get the distance of the fallen steel from 1wtc correct.

Why do codes have fire ratings for steel members in every building codes... ie 1, 2 oe 3 hrs if fire does not have a very destructive impact on steel structural members? Why bother to use sprinklers?

It's hardly worth the time to debate with people who don't know what they are talking about and can only repeat AE911T bullet points.

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

My interest is to establish the best fit explanation to the collapses... NO case has been made for CD... I put out an explanation for the twin towers and would like intelligent comments / criticisms of it.

Debating with truther sycophants is of no interest.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

I don't rely on NIST... I rely on my observations....and those who have provided time motion studies of the video... and my own knowledge as an architect and the actual structures of those buildings.

So what, in your learned opinion is the difference between the long and short span trusses connections at the core end, as illustrated in NIST's ANSYS model below? Apparently none of your debunker buddies see any difference at all. I wonder why....

I have looked at your theories and debated you over the years. I wouldn't trust you to build a child's playpen, never mind let you near an actual building.

 

[mike2810]

Re: WTC Core Details

So what, in your learned opinion is the difference between the long and short span trusses connections at the core end, as illustrated in NIST's ANSYS model below? Apparently none of your debunker buddies see any difference at all. I wonder why....

I have looked at your theories and debated you over the years. I wouldn't trust you to build a child's playpen, never mind let you near an actual building.

View attachment 67229602

Still waiting for a copy of the actual construction/engineering blue prints to be presented.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Still waiting for a copy of the actual construction/engineering blue prints to be presented.

That's correct. You are.

The fact of the matter is that the long and short spans are different in NIST's ANSYS model. They are different in the 1964 booklet. They are different in the pictures from construction and refit.

The pics and the booklet strongly suggest that the ANSYS model is wrong. Drawing book 6 confirms this. Would you understand what you were even looking at ? Your pal Gamalon clearly didn't.

Where did he go btw ?

:lamo

 

[mike2810]

Re: WTC Core Details

That's correct. You are.

The fact of the matter is that the long and short spans are different in NIST's ANSYS model. They are different in the 1964 booklet. They are different in the pictures from construction and refit.

The pics and the booklet strongly suggest that the ANSYS model is wrong. Drawing book 6 confirms this. Would you understand what you were even looking at ? Your pal Gamalon clearly didn't.

Where did he go btw ?

:lamo

Strongly suggesting? :lamo What does the construction/engineer blue prints show?
I strongly suggest you are grasping at straws. :lol:

You would have to ask him on where he went.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Strongly suggesting? :lamo What does the construction/engineer blue prints show?
I strongly suggest you are grasping at straws. :lol:

You would have to ask him on where he went.

Yes. This structural drawing here ( 6AB - 1 31.1 ) strongly suggests it because you can nail down exactly where the truss ends would be from it - does it clear things up for you ?

(This is the bit where you claim not to understand the evidence that you demanded would be the proof that was required)

Bluff called........

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

So what, in your learned opinion is the difference between the long and short span trusses connections at the core end, as illustrated in NIST's ANSYS model below? Apparently none of your debunker buddies see any difference at all. I wonder why....

I have looked at your theories and debated you over the years. I wouldn't trust you to build a child's playpen, never mind let you near an actual building.

View attachment 67229602

I don't like your attitude. It stinks. I have designed and built plenty of houses some as large as 12,000 SF. I don't do steel framed commercial buildings. I have also operated and custom woodwork shop for years.

The OOS flooring in the twin towers below the plane strike zone collapsed from connection failures at the spadrels and the belt girder overwhelmed by dynamic loads from collapsing material from above.

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

I don't like your attitude. It stinks. I have designed and built plenty of houses some as large as 12,000 SF. I don't do steel framed commercial buildings. I have also operated and[sic] custom woodwork shop for years.

The OOS flooring in the twin towers below the plane strike zone collapsed from connection failures at the spadrels[sic] and the belt girder overwhelmed [sic]by dynamic loads from collapsing material from above.

As always, Sander, zero evidence from the USGOCT conspiracy theorists.

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

So what, in your learned opinion is the difference between the long and short span trusses connections at the core end, as illustrated in NIST's ANSYS model below? Apparently none of your debunker buddies see any difference at all. I wonder why....

I have looked at your theories and debated you over the years. I wouldn't trust you to build a child's playpen, never mind let you near an actual building.

View attachment 67229602

You debated me about my theories for years? Really... That's news to me. I recall you getting all excited about the impossibility of the girder walk off at col 79... something of now interest to me and not a cause of the collapse.

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

Can't debate the explanations for the collapse of the towers when the parties don't even agree on the facts and observations. I am referring to the statement at the speed of collapse of the twin towers which DID not show acceleration but a terminal velocity of about 100' per second which is about 65mph.... or the fact that fires raged in plane strike zones of the twins until they collapsed.

I don't rely on NIST... I rely on my observations.

It's hardly worth the time to debate with people who don't know what they are talking about and can only repeat AE911T bullet points.

As always, Sander, zero evidence in this screed of yours too.

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

... I recall you getting all excited about the impossibility of the girder walk off at col 79... something of now[sic] interest to me and not a cause of the collapse.

Veeeeeery interesting!

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

You debated me about my theories for years? Really... That's news to me. I recall you getting all excited about the impossibility of the girder walk off at col 79... something of now interest to me and not a cause of the collapse.

I'll take that as a "no, I see no difference whasoever in the core end truss connections in NIST's ANSYS model" then.


Funny that only people of your ilk seem to be looking at it from an angle where they do not see that one end is steeper than the other.

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

I'll take that as a "no, I see no difference whasoever in the core end truss connections in NIST's ANSYS model" then.
View attachment 67229613

Funny that only people of your ilk seem to be looking at it from an angle where they do not see that one end is steeper than the other.

My belief: The relevant feature of the truss joists was their end supports... not the nature of the diagonal members.

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

My belief: The relevant feature of the truss joists was their end supports... not the nature of the diagonal members.

The nature of the diagonal members of the floor trusses is for the sole purpose of showing that gerrycan is using drawings that are not representative of what was installed. He's using the truss drawings from a 1964 booklet. He has no clue what he is looking at and has changed his story at every turn to try and save face. I stopped discussing things with him because he lacks basic structural understanding and doesn't know how to read drawings/blueprints at all. Makes it extremely difficult to discuss things. Even when someone with experience in these topics tells him he's wrong and gives him the reasons why, he STILL doesn't understand.

It's like talking physics with an infant.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

The nature of the diagonal members of the floor trusses is for the sole purpose of showing that gerrycan is using drawings that are not representative of what was installed. He's using the truss drawings from a 1964 booklet. He has no clue what he is looking at and has changed his story at every turn to try and save face. I stopped discussing things with him because he lacks basic structural understanding and doesn't know how to read drawings/blueprints at all. Makes it extremely difficult to discuss things. Even when someone with experience in these topics tells him he's wrong and gives him the reasons why, he STILL doesn't understand.

It's like talking physics with an infant.

What you clearly have not yet realised is just how wrong you were about the truss arangements as shown in "contemporary steel design".

You misread the drawing in that booklet. The drawing 33.1 is in this thread, which shows the long span run bridge onto the outside of the core perimeter being accomodated by the short span transfer truss being set further from the columns by way of the 5" pipe detail.

Show me where "contemporary steel design" is wrong.It shows EXACTLY the same truss arrangement at the long and short span ends as can be seen in photographs and inspection videos.

What you have failed to comprehend is that the element shown in red below is the perimeter truss bridging the short span transfer trusses, leaving the top and bottom chords the correct distance from the core and for the bottom chord to be bolted, unlike the short span trusses, where there is no connection to the bottom chord.

 

[SanderO]

Re: WTC Core Details

What you clearly have not yet realised is just how wrong you were about the truss arangements as shown in "contemporary steel design".

You misread the drawing in that booklet. The drawing 33.1 is in this thread, which shows the long span run bridge onto the outside of the core perimeter being accomodated by the short span transfer truss being set further from the columns by way of the 5" pipe detail.

Show me where "contemporary steel design" is wrong.It shows EXACTLY the same truss arrangement at the long and short span ends as can be seen in photographs and inspection videos.

What you have failed to comprehend is that the element shown in red below is the perimeter truss bridging the short span transfer trusses, leaving the top and bottom chords the correct distance from the core and for the bottom chord to be bolted, unlike the short span trusses, where there is no connection to the bottom chord.
View attachment 67229659

The core side of the floor truss were supported on the angles welded and perhaps bolted to a belt girder which was cantilevered away from the core so that while the core perimeter columns reduced in cross section and were aligned axially beam stubs were longer at you ascend the core. The top chord of the double trusses were bolted to the seat angles...