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 )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc Molten Metal: Fact Or Fiction?, Analysis of the Evidence

amazed!
post Aug 18 2007, 10:28 PM
Post #41





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



If what Judy Wood says about research assistants "helping" FEMA construct its official explanation is true, then her point about DEW might very well be accurate.

If it is true that 2 companies who have done much research on DEW and perhaps developed such systems provided nearly 2 dozen assistants to FEMA in explaining what caused the collapse, that would be yet another of the 2 zillion "coincidences" regarding the events of 9/11.

Obviously, it raises the question of WHY 2 companies involved in DEW testing would provide that many helpers to analyze a heat and gravity event?

If that assistance is NOT true, then maybe Judy is full of it. She comes across as credible to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Aug 19 2007, 07:50 AM
Post #42


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 11 2007, 07:30 PM)
I never use the words "zionist" and "jew" in the same sentence.

rarely say never... laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Aug 20 2007, 10:36 AM
Post #43





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Aug 17 2007, 01:35 PM)
cb brooklyn spreads these little breadcrumbs around like some kind of a manager for judy wood. it is bunkum.

judy wood is a strawman. if you look through her site it is designed to give you two options. either believe in the stoopid death ray or straight back the 19 arabs. there are no other options. it is a trap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Y2kkI0aao

i have accused cb of being judy wood. he/she never came back to the forum. then new sock puppets started turning up singing the same song. i believe they are both working for the government to muddy the waters.

You just hit the nail right on the head! thumbsup.gif

With "friends" like Judy Wood, who needs enemies?

Actually, an interesting pattern often arises with these disinformants; typically, they will push one of two scenarios:

1) That the Twin Towers were demolished by mysterious energy weapons; that the planes were either holograms or illusions created by blue screen technology, and that a race of reptilian "shape shifters" rules the world. While they never provide any real evidence in support of their theories, they dedicate every other waking moment to attacking honest researchers, such as Steven Jones. Essentially, they are killing two birds with one stone: Turning people away from us by creating the impression that 9/11 researchers are crazy, while at the same time assisting with the establishment's systematic attack on 9/11 Truth.

2) That the 9/11 attack was both planned and orchestrated by fanatical Muslims in the Middle East; that the US Government were "waiting" for a new catalyzing event to forward their agenda, and that the Bush administration decided to turn a blind eye (LIHOP). This theory appeases the anti-Bush crowd by suggesting that we can try the current administration for criminal negligence, while at the same time supporting the myth that there are "crazy wild-eyed" Muslims ready and willing to attack us. Therefore, the "justification" for the Patriot Act, the "war on terror", the Department of Homeland Security, and any further "Big Brother" legislation remains in place.

We often ask ourselves Que Bono who benefits In this case, the above two scenarios only work in the favor of those who benefitted from the 9/11 attack. People really need to wake up and smell the deception!

This post has been edited by Beached: Aug 20 2007, 09:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrnsr
post Aug 21 2007, 11:10 PM
Post #44





Group: Newbie
Posts: 67
Joined: 13-August 07
Member No.: 1,686



Anybody mind if I add 2cents worth? Too bad!

The hydraulics for the grapple are in more danger from getting the rod scraped up, barrel dented and hoses cut than any real risk of melted seals. The distance of the hot steel is pretty far from the cylinder as a whole- now if the rod had lingered for an extended period in a scorching hot enclosed area and then retracted, the integrity of the seal would be compromised, but only to the extent of a leak. I frequently weld on the back end of a cylinder as long as the piston is shoved away, and all too often have to heat the gland region of the barrel red hot to break threads loose, but the only real consequence is the time it takes to dig out melted urethane. That's my experience as the owner of a hydraulics business.

The blast of steam frim the NYC street has only to do with a fractured steam line, nothing to do with a water line.
Also, spraying water on molten metal is not the dangerous aspect, it is when something cold/damp, say a ladel, dips into a pot of molten lead, for instance, to do a leaded joint for cast iron pipe (dating myself) or, yes, musket balls, the moisture on the ladel may flash to steam and you can get a faceful of molten lead spatter. Heating the ladel makes all the difference. That's my experience as a steamfitter.

I found the report of microspheres particularly interesting. Back in college, we made them to study molten metal transfer during welding. It has been many decades, so I can't recall the exact details, but if you hold a welding arc against some basemetal just above a bucket of water, in such a way, the weld metal predominantly drops into the bucket, you generate miniaturized BBs and little tiny hollow spheres of a nature that indicates "outgassing" while molten. What's that got to do with 911? It indicates maybe two out of three things: molten metal experienced an explosion; molten metal was created in an explosion; it does not indicate jetfuel melted or "yielded" steel. That's my experience as a Welding Engineer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Natasha
post Aug 21 2007, 11:21 PM
Post #45





Group: Newbie
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,736



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Aug 17 2007, 08:35 AM)
cb brooklyn spreads these little breadcrumbs around like some kind of a manager for judy wood. it is bunkum.

judy wood is a strawman. if you look through her site it is designed to give you two options. either believe in the stoopid death ray or straight back the 19 arabs. there are no other options. it is a trap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Y2kkI0aao

i have accused cb of being judy wood. he/she never came back to the forum. then new sock puppets started turning up singing the same song. i believe they are both working for the government to muddy the waters.


I really like Genghis's video a lot. It really made me think. I have however a very different take on DE. I think DE weapons really were used, and I think the conclusion Genghis has reached about DE, is exactly what the Wood cointell operation intended. As I have said before though, I think Genghis is a good man, and I don't think he is involved in the funny business.

I think Wood's job, is to head off inquiry into possible directed energy weapons deployment on 911, by making the very idea look as absurd as her website, and I think BSreg Fred is doing the same exact thing to the NPT and TV fakery investigation. Read this post. Then read this post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 22 2007, 03:34 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Did I already post this once? Or did I type it and then delete it cause I wasn't sure of what Judy Wood was actually promoting?? I think the latter so I'll iterate...

I really don't know what's fact or fiction regarding many of these things, the purpose of any good disinfo campaign of course is to confuse and distract and set people up to ridicule so that no can ever figure out what the truth really is. And the best disinfo campaigns are those that contain a germ of truth in them, something painter has eloquently pointed out before. The proof in the pudding is the "terrorist threat". Warnings came in before 9/11 from all over the place partly because there were real people who thought that there was going to be a Muslim attack on America I believe - in other words, they didn't just fake 9/11, they faked the "planning" of 9/11. There is a video, "the Usual Suspects" in which a few people that were later fingered as 9/11 hijackers expound about their hatred for America - here's my opinion on that, those people weren't fakes, weren't reading a script. They probably believed they were involved in an attack on America. Only a few of the hijackers at the most (like drug-runner Mohammed Atta) knew what was really going on. Even within the CIA or FBI, who's fingerprints are on various attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the first WTC bombing, contain agents that are out there trying to stop terrorism and others who are trying to start it. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing, and you'll never connect the CIA to the terrorists unless you look real hard 'cause they always try to stick a middle man (like, in the case of 9/11, the Pakistani ISI) in the middle. On top of all that you have an unspoken mindset in the highest levels of the US government where "blowback" from a foreign policy that is abusive toward Islamic nations isn't considered an unforseen or unwanted side-affect, but is welcome, 'cause the more real terrorism they can foment the less they have to manufacture themselves. the "terrorist threat" is the mother of all disinfo campaigns, and it is nearly impossible to reveal it for what it is because of the amount of truth that it contains. Most people are used to something being true or false - and have a hard time wrapping their mind around something that is both true and false at the same time.

What does any of this have to do with NPT or Judy Wood's theories? Maybe nothing. But I think this "terrorist threat" ALGORYTHM is a tried, true and very succesful template for other disinfo campaigns and they would not hesitate to use it whenever possible. So whenever I see a successful disinfo campaign, I start looking for the germ of truth in it. Directed Energy Weapons are not fiction, they exist, they're here, they are talking about using them for crowd control and they are in use in Iraq (and from the pictures I've seen I don't think they are just trying to control crowds there). I find it very plausible that this kind of weaponry could have been placed say, in WTC7 and focused on the towers to pulverise concrete and augment thermate charges and more conventional explosives to make sure the towers came down as planned. Utilising a technology like this would have another very advantageous effect - it would leave evidence that could be expanded upon to support crazy theories of "Star Wars Beams" that would have researchers arguing with each other till doomsday - in other words, the basis for a disinfo campaign.

I could be wrong, but this is how I tend to think about these things. If nothing else, it's food for thought I think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Natasha
post Aug 22 2007, 07:00 PM
Post #47





Group: Newbie
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,736



Terrific post Sanders. Very well said.


handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Sep 5 2007, 05:43 AM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



It seems that whenever a
new, clear idea is presented...
out pops a space beam.

from my observations,
lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Nov 3 2007, 04:41 AM
Post #49





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



THE REAL QUESTION IS CB,

who are you?.

why do you roam the net, spamming endlessly for woods/.

why do u never mention any other subject?.

why does woods never answer to the hilarious bumbling mistakes she has on her website?.

NO ENGINE BLOCKS were destroyed on 911. why has judy claimed there was for the past 18 months while being aware that the claim is bogus?.

why doesn't she retract or verify?.

why does judy think it's strange that fabric and plastic burn before steel?.

why does she think broken laminated windscreens look strange?

why does she keep claiming the spire 'dustifies' when it so clearly drops?.

ARE YOU JUDY WOODS?.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Nov 4 2007, 06:07 AM
Post #50





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



Re: "Molten Metal" .... in the recent David Shayler/BBC Conspiracy vid`... there is a reference to the temp` of molten steel being 1500 degrees and i remember reading somewhere once that the steel specified in the Twin Towers was certified to 2700!... anybody now what it really is!?!

dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Nov 4 2007, 07:54 AM
Post #51





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Can get to the bottom of this simple enough. I know someone who is a research technician/Metalurgist. I will put questions to him today and the factual truth about molten steels reaction to alot of water and its proximity to any hydraulic seals will be known.

Slag is waste material which is scooped off molten steel. Rather like skimming milk off to purify it. It is impossible for molten steel to cause any damage to the hydraulics due to the distance it is from the molten steel and the time it spends in proximity to the hydraulics.

I have visited smelting plants for several years, and I know of water sprayed onto molten steel and all it does is boil off and dance on the surface as it does so. If one was to turn a hose pipe into a vat containing molten metal, the results: I don't know, but I will get that answer very soon.

I will post the information and answers I get later on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Nov 4 2007, 10:09 AM
Post #52





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Right, ok, just got off the phone after talking in depth about the original post. Straight to the point, the original post in relation to steel reaction to having water poured onto it is total bollocks.

When steel is in its molten state, in a pool and you turn a hose onto it, the water immediate steams up and burns off rapidly. It does not in any way react with such force it causes an explosion. Molten metal will never react in anyway which causes any ejection of molten metal.

However, if you had a pool of water and poured molten steel into that, then the erruption would be an explosive eruption of water causing molten metal to spray.

Now the for the slag part. Molten steel is purified of its oxides, and results in slag in furnace stage. Steel which is then spun or made into RSJs, or any other mould is clean. If it is smelted again, no slag would be evident. Any materials such as plastic, cement or other pollutants resulting from a building collapse will not produce slag as they will all be burnt off producing obnoxious fumes.

So there we have it. 100% FACT which completely disproves the original post of this thread.

Molten metal was present. No doubt about it. He also pointed out that any residues of oxides present in or on any of the metal structure would definately have come from an external source. He mentioned aluminium oxides, which is, he said, is clear from the descriptions here, that a secondary element was introduced into the steel element to create coloured smoke which is rising from the ground.

Most already know, but 1600c is the molten point of steel.

This post has been edited by Truthseekers: Nov 4 2007, 10:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Nov 5 2007, 06:06 AM
Post #53





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



....errr!... should`nt this thread be moved to Alternative Theories!?! ... just a thought! ... we have also got the the NPT`ers and the like slowly infiltrating other sub forums on this site and in my opinion this should be clamped down on!... may i suggest a sub-sub forum in the Alternative Theories Forum entitled Trash Can where all violators post`s would be moved to! .... Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Nov 5 2007, 06:59 AM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



This thread is fine where it is IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 7 2007, 02:39 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Nov 4 2007, 09:09 AM)
Right, ok, just got off the phone after talking in depth about the original post. Straight to the point, the original post in relation to steel reaction to having water poured onto it is total bollocks.

When steel is in its molten state, in a pool and you turn a hose onto it, the water immediate steams up and burns off rapidly. It does not in any way react with such force it causes an explosion. Molten metal will never react in anyway which causes any ejection of molten metal.

However, if you had a pool of water and poured molten steel into that, then the erruption would be an explosive eruption of water causing molten metal to spray.

Now the for the slag part. Molten steel is purified of its oxides, and results in slag in furnace stage. Steel which is then spun or made into RSJs, or any other mould is clean. If it is smelted again, no slag would be evident. Any materials such as plastic, cement or other pollutants resulting from a building collapse will not produce slag as they will all be burnt off producing obnoxious fumes.

So there we have it. 100% FACT which completely disproves the original post of this thread.

Molten metal was present. No doubt about it. He also pointed out that any residues of oxides present in or on any of the metal structure would definately have come from an external source. He mentioned aluminium oxides, which is, he said, is clear from the descriptions here, that a secondary element was introduced into the steel element to create coloured smoke which is rising from the ground.

Most already know, but 1600c is the molten point of steel.

Hello Truthseekers, and nice avatar by the way. yes1.gif

I've been working with steel for over 20 years and would like to add a few other points to this discussion.

See the following .PDF over at the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), Section 2.7 on p.14 regarding thermal degradation of steel's stress-strain curve and melting/yield points.
http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/...ildingsFire.pdf
Also see Section 6.5 on p.38 which states,

"The mechanical properties of the steel continue to degrade
with increasing temperatures, as shown in Section 2, until
near total strength and stiffness depletion occurs around
2,000 F (1,100 C). The actual melting point of steel is in
the range of 2,500 F to 2,700 F (1,370 C to 1,480 C),
which can vary with the particular chemistry and accompa-
nying phase changes. However, for practical purposes, relatively
little strength and stiffness of steel are retained
beyond about 1,300 F (700 C), less than 20 percent of the
ambient values."

The actual melting and yield points will depend on the steel alloy (and steel lot) used in WTC 1, 2, and 7. According to FEMA, this is ASTM A36- see pg. 3-3 of:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch3.pdf
I was trained to specify materials on the engineering drawing, but haven't seen the actual steel specification called out on a WTC drawing anywhere yet...

Another very good foundry color/temperature reference is at:
http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm
(This chart should allow laypersons to estimate steel temperatures from photos and video with reasonable accuracy according to the principles of optical pyrometry, Wein's Displacement Law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and these are 3 subjects that Wikipedia is actually fairly accurate about)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/stefan.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

Regarding the "explosiveness" of molten steel being put into a pool of water, I know that the 'Ol Timers used to call birdshot "chill" depending upon its size (with molten lead being dropped into tanks of water of various temperature to "freeze" at different spherical sizes). I'd bet the same methods are used today to produce steel shot of various sizes for waterfowl hunting. I have also seen molten rock flowing into oceanwater with considerable steam and a sizzle in places like Hawaii, with no explosions (but metals could act as a catalyst- see below). I've dunked countless yellow and orange pieces of steel into a tank of tapwater, but the steam burn is a real hazard.

High temperatures can actually split water into its constituent gases (H2 and O2), a process called thermolysis. Princeton tells us that we need 2500C for this to happen:
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Hydr...rmochemical.htm

Other sources state that this occurs between 2000K and loses practicality around 2500K (there may be carelessness in the Celsius and Kelvin conversions, but adding/subtracting 273.15 seems pretty straightforward to me)
http://folk.ntnu.no/oyvindsk/pf/pf.html

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16100279

http://anes.fiu.edu/Pro/s10Sc.pdf

Hydrogen gas is highly reactive, burning with nearly 10 times the flame velocity of gasoline vapor (incidentally, it is an EXCELLENT fuel for internal combustion engines, actually cleaning the intake air of pollution) See the book "Solar Hydrogen", by Roy McAlister, a Professor of Engineering who has been running vehicles without oil derivatives for about 16 years.
http://www.knowledgepublications.com/solar_hydrogen.htm

Now if the molten steel causes thermolysis, the hydrogen reaction in air could truly get interesting, since hydroxy (or "water gas," "town gas," or "producer gas") can run gasoline and diesel internal comustion engines better than petroleum products will. "Brown's Gas" also comes from water, but has some very different properties from my research.

Now even if the WTC 1&2 structural steel was weakened, I haven't seen conclusive, empirical data on the exact heat transfer mechanism and quantity of latent heat generated by inefficient JP4 combustion and office fires...

Then there's the February 1975 North Tower fire that everyone seems to keep forgetting...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

EDIT: The "safety factor" concept should come into play here too. I've heard that skyscrapers use a "safety factor" of 2-3 times the expected maximum building/snow/wind loads, but I studied physics and electromechanical engineering and materials science, not civil engineering. My father did study architecture however, and I have most of his older building design books.

If we take 50% steel strength times 200% building "safety factor", then we still have 100% WTC tower support strength. At 50% steel strength and 300% "safety factor", we have 150% WTC tower support strength. Either way, I'm reasonably certain that Skilling would NOT have designed the WTC Twin Towers at a 1.000 "safety factor," unless he was a damned fool looking to get sued...

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 7 2007, 03:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 7 2007, 05:12 PM
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



More on steam explosions...

There is some truth in the original post, but I'll leave it to the reader to assign "credibility percentages" on their own applicable scale (mine rarely scores a 0% or 100%, but I've scored multiple negative values for KNOWN disinfo).

I don't have this book, but it looks chemically interesting
http://www.amazon.com/Steam-Explosion-Tech...s/dp/2881244572

Thermal and Igntion Type Steam Explosions at DoE:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=147716

Then there are those good ol' fashioned boiler explosions (** in a CLOSED or nearly-closed system in nearly all cases):

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage...on-786437.shtml

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...11/ai_n16904765

http://www.khqa.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=62949

http://www.sooeveningnews.com/articles/200...ews/news543.txt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/7024545.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...explosion_x.htm

http://media.www.utahstatesman.com/media/s...n-3076090.shtml

http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasRailroads...r-Explosion.htm

http://www.wvculture.org/HiStory/disasters/mcdunn02.html

http://colfa.utsa.edu/users/jreynolds/Tucker/exp1.html

http://www.nlsme.co.uk/Articles/Boiler_Explosion.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9605.pdf

Steam is very dangerous. It also remains one of the most efficient means of heating and power transmission 2 centuries later...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Nov 8 2007, 01:30 AM
Post #57





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



...very informative post `mole!..... thanks for that!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 9 2007, 08:31 AM
Post #58





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Nov 3 2007, 03:41 AM)
why does she (Judy Woods) keep claiming the spire 'dustifies' when it so clearly drops?.



I don't know, genghis6199 - I don't believe the spire dustified but this pic sure seems to show it evaporating/ablating rather than merely "dropping".

Likewise, this clip from Ace Baker:

The Spire Disintegrates
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 13 2007, 12:45 AM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 7 2007, 01:39 PM)
EDIT:  The "safety factor" concept should come into play here too.  I've heard that skyscrapers use a "safety factor" of 2-3 times the expected maximum building/snow/wind loads, but I studied physics and electromechanical engineering and materials science, not civil engineering.  My father did study architecture however, and I have most of his older building design books.

If we take 50% steel strength times 200% building "safety factor", then we still have 100% WTC tower support strength.  At 50% steel strength and 300% "safety factor", we have 150% WTC tower support strength.  Either way, I'm reasonably certain that Skilling would NOT have designed the WTC Twin Towers at a 1.000 "safety factor," unless he was a damned fool looking to get sued...

Update on WTC Twin Tower "Factors of Safety"

From:

http://www.911research.com/papers/trumpman...alysisFinal.htm

" In a 2004 presentation NIST asserts that the 47 core columns had a factor of safety of about 2.25. The 236 perimeter columns had a factor of safety of about 5.0 (it has been asserted that the higher factor of safety for the perimeter columns was to handle wind loads). It has been asserted that the core columns, the main load bearing columns, carried 60% of the building load, and the perimeter columns supported 40% of the building load. This was a big building, like a rock in Lower Manhattan for 30 years."

To reiterate: 236 perimeter columns at ~5.0 "safety factor"
47 core columns at ~2.25 "safety factor"

Using Gene Corley's and FEMA's "50% steel strength" [which I still disagree with in absence of INSTRUMENTED thermal data], I'd say my earlier estimates were a bit conservative.

More WTC structural links (some metric & dubious ones noted, no offense intended to SI and the metric world) wink.gif :

There are a few places that mention the steel and concrete floor masses/loads.

[metric units]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors...wtc/godfrey.htm

http://www.911research.com/papers/t...alysisFinal.htm

http://911research.wtc7.ent/mirrors...news-record.htm

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...fTwinTowers.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...blueprints.html

[I've found some questionable findings in this MIT paper IMHO]
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfi...0Structures.pdf

[Very suspect findings in this paper with gems like:]
"Additionally, the FEMA team carried the computer analysis only to a point in time immediately after the impacts; they did not consider the effects of the fire."
http://132.236.67.210/EngrWords/iss...vensonC_PR1.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 13 2007, 01:26 PM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Links didn't paste...

[metric units]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/godfrey.htm

http://www.911research.com/papers/trumpman...alysisFinal.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...fTwinTowers.pdf

Paste seems broken again... I've got 4 virus scanners too...
:ph43r: to_keep_order.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 13 2007, 01:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 22nd October 2019 - 12:39 PM