Famous "diagonal Cut Column", Metalsmith analysis Options

[astronut]

Hi,
first, I'd like to suggest the Pilots Forum to combine WTC 1 and 2 Forums. Many of the posted topics in each room pertain to both buildings. More than the pertain to a single building. It would be easier to know where to post if even all WTC posts were in just one room. So, not knowing which room to post this to, I chose WTC 1.

With 5 years aviation and 25 years metal fabrication under my belt, I have written a paper that analyzes this famous photo. It also scrutinizes a photo used recently by "debunkers" when in fact, when looked at correctly, it supports the case for thermate at WTC.

This paper leads to another regarding the USGS thermal images from Sept 16th and 23rd, 2001. I'm looking for as much feedback as possible on this before submitting to the various research sites for inclusion.

http://www.centralmass911truth.org/diagonalcolumncut.html

Thanks, Larry

[SanderO]

Those photos are not showing what you claim they are. There is no evidence of concrete shear walls or enclosure of the core. There is no evidence of this being constructed in the film made at the time. And I am quite certain that no skyscrapers were constructed with concrete cores or concrete structure as it was too expensive to build with pour concrete. Steel frames, and in the case of the twins - pre assembled structural elements were used to get those buildings up fast and inexpensively.

The only concrete was for the foundations, the mechanical floors and the lightweight without stone aggregate used for the floor slabs. All the core steel was clad in 3" gypsum blocks and.

You are seeing something which is not there.

If you want to read an article about the use of concrete for cores shear wall and so forth read this written in 2000:

http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/n...g/958313-1.html

The fact is that it was completely not feasible to use concrete for shear walls and too slow and too expensive to boot in 1970.. so Yamasaki proposed the tube design to deal with the shear stresses and abandoned the steel frame with curtain wall which has been made popular with the move toward steel frames. This also enabled expansive column free tenant spaces.

Skyscrapers are not intended to last more than 50 or 100 years and have to be dismantled. Reinforced concrete is very nasty to demolition and would not have been a choice for an dense urban setting.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 27 2010, 08:36 AM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Those photos are not showing what you claim they are. There is no evidence of concrete shear walls or enclosure of the core. There is no evidence of this being constructed in the film made at the time. And I am quite certain that no skyscrapers were constructed with concrete cores or concrete structure as it was too expensive to build with pour concrete. Steel frames, and in the case of the twins - pre assembled structural elements were used to get those buildings up fast and inexpensively.

The only concrete was for the foundations, the mechanical floors and the lightweight without stone aggregate used for the floor slabs. All the core steel was clad in 3" gypsum blocks and.

You are seeing something which is not there.

If you want to read an article about the use of concrete for cores shear wall and so forth read this written in 2000:

http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/n...g/958313-1.html

The fact is that it was completely not feasible to use concrete for shear walls and too slow and too expensive to boot in 1970.. so Yamasaki proposed the tube design to deal with the shear stresses and abandoned the steel frame with curtain wall which has been made popular with the move toward steel frames. This also enabled expansive column free tenant spaces.

Skyscrapers are not intended to last more than 50 or 100 years and have to be dismantled. Reinforced concrete is very nasty to demolition and would not have been a choice for an dense urban setting.

Unfortunately, even if you rebuilt the Towers exactly as they were originally, it wouldn't matter. Chris would still claim that they had a concrete core.

[Christophera]

Unfortunately, even if you rebuilt the Towers exactly as they were originally, it wouldn't matter. Chris would still claim that they had a concrete core.

All that text and not one image of the steel core columns in the core area on 9-11. Clearly, the concrete core mentioned by Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

[DoYouEverWonder]

All that text and not one image of the steel core columns in the core area on 9-11. Clearly, the concrete core mentioned by Robertson is verified by Oxford, verifying Domel verified by the image of WTC 2 core, verifying the top of WTC 2 core falling onto WTC 3, the WTC 1 rebar, just after the WTC 1 west core wall is seen in an end view, then, the WTC 1 east shear wall toppling, consistent with interior box columns silhouetted on WTC 1 north core wall, consistent with ground zero showing the WTC 1 north concrete core base wall, 12 foot thick, all supported as clarification of the many confused statements that do mention concrete in the core including the latest revised NIST contracted analysis of free fall by Bazant et. al 6/21/2007, which actually provides an equivalent amount of high explosives needed to create the rate of fall they are attempting to justify with physics. It doesn't work, but at least they won't go down in history as totally supporting the deceptions.

Please, I shown you pictures for too many years for you to pretend you've never seen one.

If you really need me to show you again, then please start a new thread.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 27 2010, 02:16 PM

[BADBURD]

Please, I shown you pictures for too many years for you to pretend you've never seen one.

If you really need me to show you again, then please start a new thread.

I would like to see the pictures your talking about. Start a new tread on "wtc core design"

I know one thing. It is very hard to find anything relating to the towers construction that was written in the early seventies. Nothing I find on the internet is going to convince me. I want a hands on book. I don't care what the outcome is. I just want a positive answer.

[Christophera]

I would like to see the pictures your talking about. Start a new tread on "wtc core design"

I know one thing. It is very hard to find anything relating to the towers construction that was written in the early seventies. Nothing I find on the internet is going to convince me. I want a hands on book. I don't care what the outcome is. I just want a positive answer.

Since there is a controversy and the concrete core is forced into "Alternate theories" I would like to see a title like "Independently verified evidence for steel core columns", so that the same misrepresentations are not used over again and a large thread is avoided.
Evidence not traceble back to FEMA. Or varied descriptions.

Another valid post in that thread would be a plan check. Comparison against the plans and 9-11 or ground zero images. Anything to get away from the buttplates shown on top of the elevator guide rail support steel misrepresentation of construction photos. Only 100% fillet welds are acceptable for "steel core columns". Images from 9-11 showing them in the core area where they should be would help too.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 28 2010, 02:07 PM