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 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc7 Demolition, Putting the pieces together

elreb
post Dec 27 2012, 07:10 PM
Post #21





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



First picture shows sulfur activity on the towers.

Second picture shows sulfur activity from 7WTC



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 28 2012, 04:17 PM
Post #22





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



It would seem that columns and beams did not need to be cut…only weakened.

Properly, placed “exotic chemicals” would simply reduce the steel’s ability to hold its intended load.

Paper thin steel…my…my…all you need is gravity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 28 2012, 04:21 PM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (elreb @ Dec 25 2012, 09:10 PM) *
First picture shows sulfur activity on the towers.

Second picture shows sulfur activity from 7WTC





Oh my! Fire did that? Fire in a smothering pile?

If I make a fire and then cover it with concrete dust, will the steel trapped underneath look like swiss cheese when I take it out?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 28 2012, 06:07 PM
Post #24





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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 28 2012, 09:09 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. Building 7 could also have been "pre-conditioned" with accelerant coatings during the OEM diesel generator upgrades of 1999.


Are there any details on the OEM diesel generator upgrades? Extra fireproofing? Are there strategic points in the steel framing/core within the area of the diesel fuel tanks where this "fireproofing" may have been applied?

Could fireproofing with this exotic accelerant be applied at strategic points? Only to combust at a certain temperature? Or chemically ignited through the sprinkler system?

Did it need a kick-start because they f-ed up Plan A?

Those images are unreal.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 28 2012, 09:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 28 2012, 10:01 PM
Post #26





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 28 2012, 03:09 PM) *
Are there any details on the OEM diesel generator upgrades? Extra fireproofing?

Yes, I had proposed a timeline on another thread, yet there were no takers.

The Team has tons of files and reports

I’ll try to get data up soon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 28 2012, 10:18 PM
Post #27





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 475
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 26 2012, 11:09 PM) *
Are there any details on the OEM diesel generator upgrades? Extra fireproofing? Are there strategic points in the steel framing/core within the area of the diesel fuel tanks where this "fireproofing" may have been applied?

Could fireproofing with this exotic accelerant be applied at strategic points? Only to combust at a certain temperature? Or chemically ignited through the sprinkler system?

Did it need a kick-start because they f-ed up Plan A?

Those images are unreal.


I believe there were innumerable locations where a high-tech incendiary could be placed.

Take a look at the column. Both the inner and outer webs were vaporized. It appears that there was enough left over after the collapse to continue the erosion on this column while it was horizontal.

We must find out what did this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 28 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (kawika)
Take a look at the column. Both the inner and outer webs were vaporized. It appears that there was enough left over after the collapse to continue the erosion on this column while it was horizontal.


Exactly bro.

Is there a timeframe for when the WTC7 steel was removed? I've read the date 29th September but had also read somewhere that it had been removed within days (not sure where I read that).

Just need to keep chipping at and narrowing down the arguments lads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2012, 01:40 PM
Post #29





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



Keep this page handy so we can talk about it.

Floors 5, 6, and 7 are great places to “Trick-Out”.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2012, 01:45 PM
Post #30





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



I think the bunker improvements tie together with mischief.

New Pearl Harbor comes out in June of 1997.

The date of the Mayor’s Office of “Emergency Management” was perfect timing.

They range from 1998 to 1999 and gave them open run to the 7th floor and the floors below it.

Core drilling and fireproofing including 3M.

This would have been a great time and no one would think twice.

Bush 41 cheats the election in 2000 and in office by January 2001.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2012, 05:45 PM
Post #31





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



Gee, no wonder Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Police Commissioner Benard Keirk and Fire Department Commissioner Thomas Von Essen received honors from the Queen of England.

Everyone gets a pat on the back, a promotion and some bonus buck$.

In January of 2002, Giuliani starts “Giuliani Partners” which included Kerik, Von Essen, Matthew Mahoney [Deputy Director of Advance for the Mayor’s Office], and Pasquale J. D'Amuro, [Assistant Director in Charge in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York office and an Inspector in Charge following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks].

Who are the real crooks here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2012, 08:24 PM
Post #32





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



I like FEMA words.

The 5th, 6th and 7th floors contained the diaphragm floors, belt trusses and transfer girders.

Truss 1, Truss 2, Truss 3 and several cantilever transfer girders.

First off, I would want to soften column #80.

I think this may be your “Kink” area.

I also have a new word = cannibalize.

The steel is actually being eaten or dissolved alive and “not” by fire.

The cantilever transfer girders, spanned between the core and the north elevation at the 7th floor.

There were eight transfer girders to redirect the load of the building above the 7th floor into the columns that went through the Con Ed substation.

These girders cantilevered 6 feet 9 inches between the substation and the north facade of the building above.

The girders extended an additional 46 feet to the core.

The two transfer girders at the east end of the building were connected to Truss 1, creating a double transfer.

The girders varied in depth from 9 feet at the north end, to a tapered portion in the middle, and to 4 feet 6 inches at the southern section closest to the core. [We have the picture]

Each transfer girder weighed approximately 52 tons.

At the north wall, between the 7th and 5th floors, transferred columns were also part of the belt truss that circled the building as part of the lateral-load-resisting system and acted as a transfer for the columns above the shipping ramp.

The bottom cords of the transfer trusses were part of the support of the 5th floor slab and, as such, were located below the slab and above the ceiling of the 4th floor in a position exposed to fire from below.

The bottom cord members were massive members weighing slightly over 1,000 pounds per foot.

Such members are slow to heat up in a fire.


It was reported that these bottom cords were fireproofed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 29 2012, 09:23 PM
Post #33





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



Elreb,

Not a bad verbal description of the strategy for axial load transfer. The 8 tranfer girders were bearing on the north side of core... with the cantilever ends supporting 8 columns 41 stories tall each... at the inside face of the north face. If the transfer girders (cantilevers) and transfer trusses failed as they were interconnected and supported multiple columns above and if they failed could cause a lot of the tower from above flr 7 to have no load paths to the foundations... and these structures topped out at 100' above the ground... the same distance of the free fall decent seen when the building came done. This also happens to correspond to the region of inward bowing of the north facade.

There is strong evidence for their having failed prior to the obvious tower movements. I suspect that not only did this transfer structures collapse (from whatever cause)... but the 8 story trusses on the north of both the east and west walls may have been pull in or forced out when the more central structures failed. This would essentially leave the tower from floor 8 up with nothing to support it and 100 foot descent would meet no significant resistance.

The problem is, however, that there are very precise traces of the downward motion and not only did it average at FF for 100 feet, but there was a period of MORE than free fall. So there was something else in play of this is true? Could this be a spring action of some sort? If these velocity time/motion studies are accurate the 100 foot decent is not a simple gravity driven drop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 30 2012, 09:17 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

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



I'd have to read through this a few times but that's what I call meat on the bone!

For the greenhorns among us, are there any visual interpretations of the layouts described?

Could the 7,500 tons of cooling towers on the 45th floor be the reason that Column 80 was targeted?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 11:45 AM
Post #35





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



In an long span open office structure the core carries less than half the floor loads. But if the design is a square, rectangle or trapazoid the four corners of the core will carry much larger floor loads than any of the columns in the plan. You can see this by noting the size of the sections for these 4 columns. In the twins core it was 501, 509, 1001 and 1009. We had data for the twins columns and those four were each 2x as string (cross section area) as the next strongest column and as much as 10x as much as inner core columns and almost 15x as strong as one central core column.

The column (79) which NIST focused on was one of those columns which carried a large area of floor loads. But this NE corner also was supported down low on the transfer structures. Obviously the engineers / designers chose to support the heaviest equipment where the strongest columns were located as well as considering the proximity to riser shafts and so forth. Did the additional mass of a storage tank drive this column down? Of course it contributed to the axial load... but the columns were sized up to carry this load.

The weakest columns are in the core area and support the smallest floor loads...because the core is filled with shafts for elevators and mechanicals. However when a stronger column fails (for whatever reason) its loads are then redistributed to first adjacent columns and they may be much weaker to begin with and pushed close to or over their capacity. And this is how load capacity is destroyed progressively and can cascade rapidly through the structure leading to a *global* failure of all columns and then rapid onset of collapse.

A telltale sign of load redistribution can be detected if the building twists, torques, tilts even a few inches. This WAS measured prior to any naked eye motion... in 7 and in WTC 1. If this is in fact what happened then this rules out an instantaneous destruction of all load paths (80 or 81 columns over 8 floors INSTANTANEOUSLY). That would produce a straight drop... with no distortion of the top.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 01:25 PM
Post #36





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 30 2012, 03:17 AM) *
I'd have to read through this a few times but that's what I call meat on the bone!

The way I see it, 80, 77, and 74 are doing the work on Truss #2.

73 and 76 doing the work on Truss #1

What is 79 doing?

I would weaken truss #2 first, truss #1 second and truss #3 third

Have your kink and eat it too.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 30 2012, 03:35 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

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



Thanks! To both.

thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
What is 79 doing?


The fall guy. Literally.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 30 2012, 03:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 04:33 PM
Post #38





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



79 got blamed but he was a diversion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 30 2012, 05:23 PM
Post #39





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) *
The fall guy. Literally.

I still like the word = Patsy = who in effect, plays the scapegoat for a more elaborate crime.

I perceive a 2 phase destruction…weaken the trusses and kick the legs.

We have talked about Aluminum, Iron Oxide and Sulfur.

Another interesting metal is Magnesium.

When we were in the Boy Scouts, we would use it to start fires because it is flammable and burning at around 5,610 F.

It is also used in flares and fireworks.

Good stuff to get a chemical reaction going. Water actually causes it to burn better. [Ask the Germans]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 06:23 PM
Post #40





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



You wouldn't have to weaken the trusses if you took out the columns which support them... no?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th August 2019 - 03:12 PM