All true statements about concrete, wind loads, fire ratings,etc. But the WTC was designed with the exterior columns to resist the wind loads and twist, etc. Most skyscrapers are built this way now. Read about it here. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html and here: http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
Don't tell me you think Yamasaki Assoc. is in on the conspiracy, too? I never said that. I said: there is no real reason to believe that they are right about what they say about concrete in the core. It is not merely my opinion that the likely source for the information [Hart, F, Henn, W., and Sontag, H., (1985), Multi-Story Buildings in Steel, Godfrey, G.B., Collins, London] is a secondary source. It's also not my opinion that nothing is said in the paper about where in the core these putative reinforced concrete panels were installed. It's also not my opinion that Professors Buyukozturk and Ulm, despite their statements about reinforced concrete inlays in the core have the following to say about the effects of the airplane impacts: `Step 1 - Impact of the airplane: The buildings had been designed for the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. Indeed, the towers withstood the initial impact of the plane. This is understandable when one considers that the mass of the buildings was about 2500 times the mass of the aircraft, and that, as has been reported, the buildings were designed for a steady wind load of roughly 30 times the weight of the plane. The impact of the plane was instantaneously followed by the ignition of perhaps 40 m^3 of jet fuel. While a fully loaded Boeing 767-200 can carry up to 90 m^3 of fuel, the flights initiated from Boston may have carried perhaps half of this amount, comprising about one-third of the airplane's weight. The impact and the ensuing fireball definitely caused severe local damage to the building and, in fact, destroyed some perimeter and core columns across multiple floors. It has been argued that the damage to several floors should have overloaded the remaining intact columns in the damaged floors affecting their resistance to buckling. Yet their resistance was sufficient to carry the loads of the upper floors almost one hour in the South Tower and almost double that much in the North Tower.' Step 2 - The failure of an elevated floor system: The fireball following the impace may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation of the structural steel members. The burning of the jet fuel may have easily caused temperatures in the range of 600C-800C in the steel. Under these conditions of prolonged heating, structural steel looses [sic] rigidity and strength. This may have caused further progressive local element failures, in addition to those failed from the initial impact, leading to a greater reduction of resistance of the connected two to three floor structural system. The load to which the column bracing system was subjected to was the weight transferred from the upper floors. At a certain stage, after some 50 minutes in the South Tower and some 100 minutes in the North Tower, the buckling resistance of the columns was reached and collapse of the columns became inevitable.' Are the Professors `telling it as it is' here above? That despite these reinforced concrete inlays in the core, some core columns were destroyed. That the fireproofing was stripped, and that the fires caused the structural steel to weaken, leading to eventual collapse? It sounds an awful lot like the NIST scenario to me. Is everything the Professors say completely correct and consistent with your own views? What's your opinion? You're kidding, right?
Whatever is necessary will be believed. Nice job on here, dpt. You have way more patience for this (and relevant learning, apparently) than I.
lol, no. i meant that maybe bush and his cronies have coerced or convinced them not to disclose anything and that seems plausable after the slew of gag orders forced upon most 911 witnesses. i mean, all the firefighters that heard explosions cant talk to this day about it. well, i can say the exact contrary, that there's no real reason to believe they are wrong about what they say about the core. those are opinions, not a description like that of the mit prof. mit may have had access to designs or have seen the towers core themselves. the opinions u posted are based on speculation never supported by photographic evidence. we don't even know if the plane reached the cores! it looks to me like both jets almost disintegrated on impact, leaving the core completely intact, and yes, in all probability also the walls. the problem we have with damage/fire is that, once more, all the evidence does not support the nist theory: by observing videos and photographs it appears the damage is very limited and certainly not extended to the core. fire were very small, most of the fuel exploded in the 3 huge fireballs: nist/fema needed to speculate the core was damaged to explain the collapse. lol, yeah it "sounds" of course no, the collapses cannot be easily explain that way; there are inconsistencies with the timing of the onset. the second tower got hit first on the lower floors where the columns were much thicker yet it collapses first!! fire was also more contained than in the first tower. many many more inconsistencies: u cant account for them if u go by the official story but if u introduce explosives and the demolition hypothesis u can account for all of them and more as one of the links posted by tradermaji explains. i will post the content of that link in its entirety later, almost 6 am here, am tired as hell, up all nite. maybe
You're an embarassment. Some of my links were from CT SITES, and even THEY aren't pushing your theory. Guess you've got the scoop of the millenium.... LMAO And again, you're a liar. MIT says there's reinforced PANELS... Most of your photos are an absolute POS, one from across the river. Now, c'mon, what kind of detail can you get from that. The only good one is the one closeup that shows the concrete around the cores down in the bathtub. But the bathtub ain't where the planes hit....... LMAO at you again with your cosmic penguin link. Did you even read them? One guy writes that there's no steel at all in the core. Just concrete tubes. And I believe the same guy says they put in the sprinklers during the time they were being built. Wrong, they were put in later. Please start reading your own links before you put them up there boss, it's making you look trollish... ANd you couldn't tell that algoxy was a ct site? Ok, I'll take your word on it...... ROFLMMFAO !!!!!!!! **that's a lie and told on purpose to hide the impact of his words: he mentions he believes the towers could withstand multiple jet crashes, infact he says that the planes impact would have done very little damage to the towers.** WTF are you talking about here? Again, my quotes were from 9-11 research, a CT site, and they're in direct conflict with your claims of the buildings being DESIGNED to sustain multiple hits. DeMartini stated it is his OPINION that they coukd take multiple hits. So quit lying..... About the 'dipshit' comment - the dude IS a dipshit to state that there 'has never been an analysis done on the steel'. Just pointing out the obvious to him, since he was the only one that couldn't see it.... Ratty? Have you noticed that I don't respond to him anymore? Iggy...... You - are disgusting. I could see it right away, and I knew that if I pushed you, I would get what I needed. Let's examine why I Know so : 01-16-07 07:46 PM it was surrounded by concrete, Lie..... the plane impact didn't damage the main supports Lie..... the towers were built with multiple plane crashes in mind. Lie.... What a disgusting piece of filth you are.... 01-16-07 08:00 PM u are an ignorant dumb fuck, full of crap and hatred, u have absolutely no clue about nothing, go inform yourself idiot. u want me to prove it to u that the towers were built with multiple boeing707 crashes in mind? make it worthwhile to me scatface, cmon, take me on this, show me u are not only able to spew garbage all day. go read the nist report clueless piece of junk, it is obvious that the bdg supports weren't damaged by the impact. it was the dislodging of fireproofing that exposed the steel to burning jet fuel that supposedly caused the collapse. pests like u should be exterminated. *** *** 1-16-07 08:00 PM go read the nist report clueless piece of junk, it is obvious that the bdg supports weren't damaged by the impact. since i am not a hypocrite, i have no problems admitting i was wrong. can u do the same here?*** OK, so in the first post, I am called all sorts of names for calling you a liar. You also say I should read the NIST, 'cause I'm a clueless piece of junk.... But when you examine it all.it appears YOU are doing something shady. 3 possibilities here - 1- you didn't read it yourself, made claims about the content,and then called me a piece of junk for not reading it. That makes you a HYPOCRITE.... or 2- you did read it, but purposely misrepresented content. That makes you a LIAR.... or 3-you did read it, but couldn't understand the very clear summary of the damage that NIST gave, and I gave to you. That makes you a MORON..... Disgusting....... Filth........
Haroki!!! Excellent work. Step by step factual dismantling of the various assertions, complete with quotes from the relevant posts.
....and STILL TO THIS DAY, no one can explain away the WTC towers sublevel explosions (that killed and injured people there) that occurred prior to the building collapses. No one can explain what dropped many to there feet (including fireman in WTC tower lobbies) ......prior to the WTC collapses. No one can explain away the perfect 45 degree angle burn through cuts to the 47 core columns in the same ground to sublevel areas. To have any resemblance of intelligence and also believe that the WTC buildings can drop to the ground in 9 seconds from upper level fires still to this day shocks me.......LOL!!! :eek: NEO-CONNED!
5p >No one can explain away the perfect 45 degree >angle burn through cuts to the 47 core columns >in the same ground to sublevel areas. I'd like to see those -- got pics? JB
you will just say that the ground zero workers did it. ask hiroshi... he is an iron worker LMAOOOOOOOOO.... he knows. he works on choppers. too funny both nist and fema have said their theories have "low probability of occurence." yet these boot lickers eat it up like it was chicken.