IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc7 Demolition, Putting the pieces together

elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 07:03 PM
Post #41





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 30 2012, 09:35 AM) *
Thanks! To both.

OSS,

When I talk about weakening the trusses, I’m talking about the areas 5, 6, and below the 7 floor.

The construction pictures show connections and gussets several feet above floor 5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 30 2012, 08:31 PM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (elreb @ Dec 31 2012, 12:03 AM) *
OSS,

When I talk about weakening the trusses, I’m talking about the areas 5, 6, and below the 7 floor.

The construction pictures show connections and gussets several feet above floor 5.


Is that truss 2 seen in this image of Floor 5 (it's labelled "northeast looking northwest")?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 08:33 PM
Post #43





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



No I don't think so... those are the standard/regular beams framed into a girder... probably near one of the corners.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 30 2012, 08:55 PM
Post #44





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 28 2012, 10:31 PM) *
Is that truss 2 seen in this image of Floor 5 (it's labelled "northeast looking northwest")?



The girder (going left to right, south to north), top of photo, is the #2001 between col 79 and col 44.

The beams connecting to it are the K3004 and the C3004 facing east to west.

Col 79 is just out of frame on the left.

You can the see the rather unique arrangement for the floor decking running at odd angles right over the 2001 girder. This is the girder NIST says has no shear studs at such a critical junction of decking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 09:16 PM
Post #45





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE
Is that truss 2 seen in this image of Floor 5...



I try to separate the trusses from the girders because I’m thinking vertical and not horizontal.

I may need to post more pictures.

At least we know it wasn’t about fires. Imagine 1000 pounds per foot?

In architecture a truss is a structure comprising one or more triangular units constructed with straight members whose ends are connected at joints…


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 10:17 PM
Post #46





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Elreb,

Not all trusses have diagonals or triangulation... the triangle is used because it doesn't deform.

The twin towers used Vierendeel trusses which have no diagonals... they relie on very stiff 90° joints.

A truss is really a beam which has most of the web removed and gets its strength by having the tension member and the compressive member separated... the web is reduced to the diagonal (triangular) chords which links them together in a beam action... tension on bottom and compression on top.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 11:03 PM
Post #47





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



As expected, you are missing the point…

And again…we are only talking about building 7 and its 3 trusses.

Please look at the title of the thread!

Why is it hard to stay on topic?

All three trusses have triangles.

Here is truss 3…see any 90's?

Note: The Vierendeel truss is a structure where the members are not triangulated but form rectangular openings… As such, it does not fit the strict definition of a truss; regular trusses comprise members that are commonly assumed to have pinned joints, with the implication that no moments exist at the jointed ends.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 11:15 PM
Post #48





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The drawing in your last post is NOT a truss... it is as diagonal braced frame. I am not sure you understand how a truss works... maybe you do, But not from your depiction in posting #47.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 11:50 PM
Post #49





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



So now magically Truss #3 is not a truss and the structural prints are a fraud!

Between column 61 and 62 it is called truss #3.

I have both “S” prints and “A” prints.

Why can not you stay on topic?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 31 2012, 12:08 AM
Post #50





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



What you showed is not a truss.. it's a diagonally braced frame. Ask an engineer. Do you have a section or shop drawing for this truss?

Diagonals do not a truss make.

Many buildings have diagonals and use triangulation to make them stiffer for wind shear. These are not trusses.

Learn about trusses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss

diagonal braced frames:

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Braced_frames
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 31 2012, 01:20 AM
Post #51





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Attention…all readers

Do to the simple fact that “SanderO” refuses to stay on topic and has a mission to waste P4T space with useless and worthless text…

I will no longer respond to any of his wandering false, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, and invalid, off beat, unsound, untruthful, unproven and wrong blathering.

I recommend that all serious researchers to ignore him.

I am very close to solving the destruction of 7WTC and do not need distractions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 31 2012, 06:28 AM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Oh man...my bad doh1.gif

So would the splices shown be a logical area to attack?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 31 2012, 08:03 AM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS.

Correct.. these are the so called beam stubs and for columns called beam stub outlookers and used to connect beams to columns and in this case truss panels or diagonal struts to. All of these connections use 3/4"Ø bolts and gusset plates.

I have long claimed that these were the vulnerable part...where they were bolted. One side is welded in the factory. Welds are rated for strength just as bolts are. The important consideration may be the ultimate strength of the welds.

If you consider the that the strength of the steel beam or panel of a truss member is directly proportional to is criss sectional area you can see that connections represent a very different animal.

Let's suppose that the beam is a very heavy member carrying very large loads and is say 2" thick steel. How do you weld a connection which has the full 2" thick of steel? These are call full penetration welds. With thin material this is not especially challenging.. but I'd bet that getting a full pen weird with 2" plate is.

In fact some of the very thick plates welded to make up box sections.. columns showed these welds opened after the destruction.. they failed and parted. Architect Robert McCoy who is now on the board at AE911T told me that when the towers steel box columns were being fabricated many of these were rejected on inspection for the reason I noted.

You will also find testimony from several engineers,and I believe professor Corbet that there was concern about the performance of the connections. It seems that little was done to pursue this aspect of building performance.

I think you have correctly identified an area of concern and something I have been writing about since 2010.

Elreb,

You don't have to advise the readers what is valid and invalid. Readers are intelligent enough to sort out relevant information from spam. As I have written, any number of times, I am wrong as others are, and when it is pointed out to me I correct my statements. I believe the information about structure I provided are on topic and useful in understanding this complex problem.

As per your usual *style* you attacked me not the information I provided about trusses and braced frames... neither of which I wrote, but simply referenced.

Happy New Year
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 31 2012, 09:30 AM
Post #54





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Some information about welds:

http://www.weldingtipsandtricks.com/full-p...ation-weld.html

And welding failures:

http://www.welding-advisers.com/Welding-failures.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 31 2012, 11:26 PM
Post #55





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE
The “trusses” were designed to transfer the load from columns offset above into two columns below.
The actions we see in the videos require a whole bunch more than they had control over. Like every exterior column being ~simultaneously severed over eight floors.
Otherwise the building would have toppled over.

I stated that I would weaken truss 1, 2, and 3…then kick out the legs.

I claim a 3 staged event. [All man-made]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 1 2013, 08:32 AM
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 1 2013, 04:26 AM) *
I stated that I would weaken truss 1, 2, and 3…then kick out the legs.

I claim a 3 staged event. [All man-made]


Now this is where SanderO contradicts himself.

He claims that the prospect of a man-made event to bring the building down is impossible — "every exterior column being ~simultaneously severed over eight floors", yet also claims that a heat induced collapse was almost inevitable — "building design flaws"

What he calls my "gotcha" approach is actually my way of trying to cut through the waffle and narrow the argument down.

SanderO, if you want a mature, constructive discussion, you have to get it into your head that you're not talking to idiots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 1 2013, 09:00 AM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Some 3 dimensional (partial) images of trusses 1 and 2





Any use?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 1 2013, 11:22 AM
Post #58





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS,

I don't consider anyone an idiot. I have found most of those interested in 9/11 to be intellectually curious and intelligent. I have also found that many are not very good observers (not trained or experienced) and most have little to no technical knowledge of physics, statics, engineering and so forth. When most people confront complexity in their lives they need to have cartoon like understanding and have a working user interface. I consider myself only slightly advantaged with respect to the WTC destruction as I have been an architect since I graduated from college. I am not an engineer, though I was taught basic engineering, and use it in my work... I am not a physicist, though I did take classes in this and chemistry half a century ago. I have acquired other skills related to my vocations and non professional interests. All of these inform how I understand the world. I am certainly not an expert... and never claimed to be.

Enough said on that.

These photos are interesting. I believe I've seen them. But I am a bit confused as well (something normal with me). In the ,lower image it appears that the Con Ed facility reaches right up to Vesey Street and is further south than the braced frame compared with the FEMA cartoon. Also it the number of columns adjacent to Con Ed on the east is different in the cartoon and the image. And the top image Con Ed appears to be at least one column bay to the north (sort of where I thought it was). And then I don't see the trusses 1&2 either.

In the top image I do see what appears to be a 3 dimensional space frames over the sub station which are labeled 3,4 & 5 (flrs levels). But the sub station appears (mostly hidden) and well to the north of Vesey St. Whatever that 3 D structure is called it doesn't seem to be depicted on any of the FEMA cartoons... and what is labeled at truss 2 appears to be at the East wall.

I cannot dispute that these are photos taken during construction. But I can't make sense of them and relate them to the FEMA cartoons. And frankly I can't even figure out the levels or the column #s. Could this possibly be a reversed of composite or fiddled with image?

Am I the only person confused by this? I see some resemblance to parts of the FEMA cartoon, but more that looks nothing like it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 1 2013, 11:35 AM
Post #59





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 1 2013, 08:32 AM) *
Now this is where SanderO contradicts himself.

He claims that the prospect of a man-made event to bring the building down is impossible — "every exterior column being ~simultaneously severed over eight floors", yet also claims that a heat induced collapse was almost inevitable — "building design flaws"

What he calls my "gotcha" approach is actually my way of trying to cut through the waffle and narrow the argument down.

SanderO, if you want a mature, constructive discussion, you have to get it into your head that you're not talking to idiots.




No he doesn't claim that a man made event is impossible... never did. He (me) claims that it hasn't been demonstrated. What has been demonstrated is that the NIST explanation is not correct.

I don't recall use of the term *building design flaws*. But if I did use this I would have meant to say that it was the nature of the engineering design and decisions which enabled the tower to collapse as it did.

When engineers design redundancy into a structure... they do so with several strategies... provide for extra strength (high FOS).. and alternate load paths which can direct loads when parts of the structure (usually columns) fail. This is connected to adequate FOS... as loads will ALWAYS find a new path in a composite structure... whether or not the new found load paths can carry the additional loads.

I would argue that the designs of both the twin towers and 7 did not meet this standard. The engineers chose to perhaps increase the FOS... an amount which is yet to be conclusively determined. But they did not provide for alternate load paths and DID use trusses which are subject to catastrophic failure. This doesn't mean trusses can't perform. They do. But they have multiple failure points and can take the entire structure with it... like a bridge failure.

So by *design flaw* I mean that the 2 designs (twins and 7) had inherent design engineering features which would not arrest some failure modes... but enable them. The designs would promote runaway progressive cascading failures.

Do you agree?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 1 2013, 12:06 PM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I give up.

As for the FEMA diagram, if the square section in the cartoon is meant to depict the entire ConEd area, then yes, something's wrong there. The eastern face of the ConEd concrete structure appears to run along beside column 79 and the shipping ramp

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2897/200719853.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9862/200719852.jpg

Edit: but the trusses and columns match with elreb's plans

http://www.rebrammer.com/images/colm80crop.gif



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 1 2013, 12:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

26 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2019 - 11:15 AM