Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Very cool. You may want to add your name to "What's your 9/11 expertise."
How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes?
- Thread starter Max Photon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- controlled demolition wtc
So it would be natural to have 2 different photo folders:
1) A comprehensive collection of all publicly available photos of core box column sections that have bending along their lengths , damage to their ends, or have any kind of metal distortion like denting, ect...
2) A large and representative collection of photos of the debris piles of the North and South Towers and the immediate areas around them (plaza, ect), a representative collection of all photos taken during the clean-up of these areas so that we can see as much as possible the core box columns as they were being removed from the site.
This collection of photos is very important to provide a backdrop to more properly understand what the photos of the damaged core columns actually represent. Are they examples of the most typical damage patterns visible on core box columns or are they, as I know to be true, only a small, non-representative percentage of more exceptional cases of damage.
The first folder doesn't mean much without the second, because you can gain no actual knowledge of the most general damage patterns by merely looking at individual pictures of isolated core box columns.
So could everyone please provide links to all the photos of damaged core box column sections (columns showing metal distorting and and bending) that they have knowledge of so we can make the first folder? Thanks.
The following folder contains a collection of core box columns showing metal distortion
h tt p://w w w.sh arpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/
In answer to Apollo20: Lon Waters has put together a very useful and easy to use reference of every core column section used in the construction of WTC 1. It shows the cross-sections of each core column section and where it was placed within the building. Wonderful reference.
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Using this reference and the 2 photo folders proposed above, we can at get a sense of what we are looking at. The idea is that the numbers will be so lopsided in faver of core box columns that are perfectly straight and have cleanly squared-off ends that, even introducing a very lenient margin of error, we will see that the following 2 statements are indeed true:
1) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble are totally straight.
2) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble have squared-off ends with clean breaks that are right along the original weld surfaces.
1) A comprehensive collection of all publicly available photos of core box column sections that have bending along their lengths , damage to their ends, or have any kind of metal distortion like denting, ect...
2) A large and representative collection of photos of the debris piles of the North and South Towers and the immediate areas around them (plaza, ect), a representative collection of all photos taken during the clean-up of these areas so that we can see as much as possible the core box columns as they were being removed from the site.
This collection of photos is very important to provide a backdrop to more properly understand what the photos of the damaged core columns actually represent. Are they examples of the most typical damage patterns visible on core box columns or are they, as I know to be true, only a small, non-representative percentage of more exceptional cases of damage.
The first folder doesn't mean much without the second, because you can gain no actual knowledge of the most general damage patterns by merely looking at individual pictures of isolated core box columns.
So could everyone please provide links to all the photos of damaged core box column sections (columns showing metal distorting and and bending) that they have knowledge of so we can make the first folder? Thanks.
The following folder contains a collection of core box columns showing metal distortion
h tt p://w w w.sh arpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/
In answer to Apollo20: Lon Waters has put together a very useful and easy to use reference of every core column section used in the construction of WTC 1. It shows the cross-sections of each core column section and where it was placed within the building. Wonderful reference.
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Using this reference and the 2 photo folders proposed above, we can at get a sense of what we are looking at. The idea is that the numbers will be so lopsided in faver of core box columns that are perfectly straight and have cleanly squared-off ends that, even introducing a very lenient margin of error, we will see that the following 2 statements are indeed true:
1) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble are totally straight.
2) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble have squared-off ends with clean breaks that are right along the original weld surfaces.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
What exactly do you feel might be proven here, other than the self-evident point that an overloaded structural member is overwhelmingly more likely to fracture at its weakest point than anywhere else?
Dave
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I think he thinks this is some sort of evidence of cutting charges. But he won't say why he is fishing for our assent on this matter.
Apollo20 writes:
Some ideas on how to proceed:
A collection of a folder with all known publicly available images of bent, dented or otherwise deformed core box column sections is a must.
ON USING AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE
As mentioned before, Lon Waters has assembled a complete list of core columns, including each individual core column cross-section in a form that is easy to reference at
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Using this reference, knowing just how individual core box column sections were used in the North Tower is very easy.
Lon Waters also provides a diagram showing where each core column made a transition from box beams to I-beams at the link below
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-wtc-1-2
Using the information above, it would be possible for even a well-trained monkee to know of just how many core box columns were in WTC 1.
Apollo20, the data above tells us on which floors the transition from box columns to I-beams took place. No need to guess.
A NOTE ON THE RUBBLE DISTRIBUTION AND RUBBLE SURFACE TOPOLOGY
We can easily collect a sufficient collection of photos which allows us to clearly see everything that was visible on the surface or protruding from the surface just after the "collapses".
How do we know when we have collection of photos that, taken together, are an accurate and sufficient representation of of the debris surfaces around WTC 1 and 2? You will notice that familiar landmarks tend to recur, you will notice that you have multiple photos from multiple angles of most every area throughout the rubble distribution.
ON ALL THE BURIED RUBBLE
Around the rubble distributions of WTC 1 and 2, there were only 2 areas where there were sufficient mounds of rubble capable of hiding core box column sections underneath. That was within the actual footprints of both towers.
Both of the areas where the former cores of each tower once stood were covered with protruding mounds of rubble estimated to stand between 3 to 4 stories above street level.
But these rubble distributions do not consist of noticable "hills" anywhere else outside the footprints of each tower. Immediately outside of each of these footprints the rubble distribution sharply changes to a much flatter distribution, remaining consistently close to street level.
Therefore if no substantial mound exists outside of the 2 footprints and the visible rubble is close to street level, we will have very few core box column sections completely hidden from view outside the footprints. After all, it is not easy to completely hide 36 foot long (or longer) core box column sections under debris fields which hardly rise much above street level.
Of the core box columns which we will not be able to see in a representative photo library of the entire rubble surface as it was just after the "collapses", we expect them to be located mostly within the original footprints. We will try to account for these using another collection of photos taken of workers unburying and removing core box column sections from within the footprints of both towers.
Some ideas on how to proceed:
A collection of a folder with all known publicly available images of bent, dented or otherwise deformed core box column sections is a must.
ON USING AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE
As mentioned before, Lon Waters has assembled a complete list of core columns, including each individual core column cross-section in a form that is easy to reference at
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Using this reference, knowing just how individual core box column sections were used in the North Tower is very easy.
Lon Waters also provides a diagram showing where each core column made a transition from box beams to I-beams at the link below
h t t p://w tcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-wtc-1-2
Using the information above, it would be possible for even a well-trained monkee to know of just how many core box columns were in WTC 1.
Apollo20, the data above tells us on which floors the transition from box columns to I-beams took place. No need to guess.
A NOTE ON THE RUBBLE DISTRIBUTION AND RUBBLE SURFACE TOPOLOGY
We can easily collect a sufficient collection of photos which allows us to clearly see everything that was visible on the surface or protruding from the surface just after the "collapses".
How do we know when we have collection of photos that, taken together, are an accurate and sufficient representation of of the debris surfaces around WTC 1 and 2? You will notice that familiar landmarks tend to recur, you will notice that you have multiple photos from multiple angles of most every area throughout the rubble distribution.
ON ALL THE BURIED RUBBLE
Around the rubble distributions of WTC 1 and 2, there were only 2 areas where there were sufficient mounds of rubble capable of hiding core box column sections underneath. That was within the actual footprints of both towers.
Both of the areas where the former cores of each tower once stood were covered with protruding mounds of rubble estimated to stand between 3 to 4 stories above street level.
But these rubble distributions do not consist of noticable "hills" anywhere else outside the footprints of each tower. Immediately outside of each of these footprints the rubble distribution sharply changes to a much flatter distribution, remaining consistently close to street level.
Therefore if no substantial mound exists outside of the 2 footprints and the visible rubble is close to street level, we will have very few core box column sections completely hidden from view outside the footprints. After all, it is not easy to completely hide 36 foot long (or longer) core box column sections under debris fields which hardly rise much above street level.
Of the core box columns which we will not be able to see in a representative photo library of the entire rubble surface as it was just after the "collapses", we expect them to be located mostly within the original footprints. We will try to account for these using another collection of photos taken of workers unburying and removing core box column sections from within the footprints of both towers.
ON THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF CORE BOX COLUMNS AS SEEN IN THE RUBBLE.
The debris field of core box columns is much smaller than the one for perimeter column-spandrel plate sections. The farthest core box column I have seen from the original cores is one located next to the central "Golden Globe" sculpture in the center of the plaza. That would place it about 250 feet from the nearest core.
This means that every core box column section could be found within about 350 feet of the center of each building.
This is not a very big area in which we have to look.
ON FORENSIC RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE
It has been commented that perhaps NIST got all the data it needed before the destruction of building material, therefore it was a waste of time and space to retain much of it for further investigation.
Assuming such constraints in space and time did exist, why wouldn't the investigators at least keep a record of digital photographs of every core box column as it was being removed from the premises for future investigation?
Many core box columns had to be hoisted by a crane and placed on the beds of waiting trucks. This would give an excellent opportunity to photograph each core box column from a few different angles for the purposes of later studying where the particular structural failures within the cores occurred.
Every core box column can be identified by using it's cross-sectional and other structural data.
This would have allowed both NIST and present and future structural engineers and researchers to study and better understand the failure mechanisms within each tower, possibly merely for the purposes of building safer towers in the future.
So why doesn't such a digital comprehensive photo collection of individual building components being removed from the WTC complex exist?
Is a digital collection of damage patterns along central structural members just something that investigators forgot to make?
How would time, space and cost constraints prohibit government investigative agencies from at least keeping a thorough record of digital images of the largest structural members being removed from the crime scene?
The debris field of core box columns is much smaller than the one for perimeter column-spandrel plate sections. The farthest core box column I have seen from the original cores is one located next to the central "Golden Globe" sculpture in the center of the plaza. That would place it about 250 feet from the nearest core.
This means that every core box column section could be found within about 350 feet of the center of each building.
This is not a very big area in which we have to look.
ON FORENSIC RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE
It has been commented that perhaps NIST got all the data it needed before the destruction of building material, therefore it was a waste of time and space to retain much of it for further investigation.
Assuming such constraints in space and time did exist, why wouldn't the investigators at least keep a record of digital photographs of every core box column as it was being removed from the premises for future investigation?
Many core box columns had to be hoisted by a crane and placed on the beds of waiting trucks. This would give an excellent opportunity to photograph each core box column from a few different angles for the purposes of later studying where the particular structural failures within the cores occurred.
Every core box column can be identified by using it's cross-sectional and other structural data.
This would have allowed both NIST and present and future structural engineers and researchers to study and better understand the failure mechanisms within each tower, possibly merely for the purposes of building safer towers in the future.
So why doesn't such a digital comprehensive photo collection of individual building components being removed from the WTC complex exist?
Is a digital collection of damage patterns along central structural members just something that investigators forgot to make?
How would time, space and cost constraints prohibit government investigative agencies from at least keeping a thorough record of digital images of the largest structural members being removed from the crime scene?
Last edited:
Gravy writes:
You motives (winning a "wager") and informative contributions to this thread both show me that you will be relatively useless in collecting the data I seek.
I'll focus on collecting the necessary information to answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread.
If you had anything useful to contrubute you would have done so.
If you actually had a large collection of bent or distorted box column sections, examples that I have not already included in the folder I previously posted, you would simply show them to us.
You don't because you can't. For why would you have them but hide them from me? It isn't a poker hand.
You motives (winning a "wager") and informative contributions to this thread both show me that you will be relatively useless in collecting the data I seek.
I'll focus on collecting the necessary information to answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread.
If you had anything useful to contrubute you would have done so.
If you actually had a large collection of bent or distorted box column sections, examples that I have not already included in the folder I previously posted, you would simply show them to us.
You don't because you can't. For why would you have them but hide them from me? It isn't a poker hand.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
"Major" Tom
You are "fuller of..stuff...than a Thanksgiving Turkey"
You blythly ignore all comments and questions, charging full steam ahead with whatever your agenda might be. If you cannot make a point, and address the questions and responses to your post, you might as well go home.
I trust somebody will inform the rest of us when he does. Off to ignore you go, 'till then.
You are "fuller of..stuff...than a Thanksgiving Turkey"
You blythly ignore all comments and questions, charging full steam ahead with whatever your agenda might be. If you cannot make a point, and address the questions and responses to your post, you might as well go home.
I trust somebody will inform the rest of us when he does. Off to ignore you go, 'till then.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Stuff the ad hom fallacies and post hoc rationalizations. Gravy spelled out perfectly clearly what he meant. That he won't let you off the hook and wander on to another topic before addressing it has no bearing on whether he has the pictures in question or not.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I have over 100 examples of the columns that you say don't exist. My time is valuable. You want my research? You should have stood by your "guarantee" and met my terms.
You made a foolish claim about me that you cannot support, and you lack the maturity to retract it. We have more than enough willful ignorance around here without your addition. Goodbye.
Last edited:
Gravy writes:
Let's consider the original comment by Gravy. He said that:
I have been talking about core box columns and have clearly stated so since my first post. Given the resources I have already provided and using other publicly available resources, most readers can easily verify that the statement made by Gravy is either false or the core columns collected, considering only core box columns, couldn't possibly have been a representative sample. For even chilldren, if given the task, can clearly see by looking at a collection of representative photos of the debris surfaces of each tower that the majority of core box column sections are not "badly deformed".
??????
A much more sane an honest question has been posed to me by a number of people, and that is why I see the damage pattern and the broken welds as evidence of controlled demolition using explosives.
I have never answered the question because I never stated in any of my posts that it was. Someone attributed "bomb damage" to me by reading my website, not by anything I have said in this thread.
For the purposes of this thread at present, this damage pattern simply helps us understand what the failure mechanisms were within the core structure, particularly of the core columns in rows 500 and 1000, including columns 601, 608, 901 and 908. These are the largest and strongest core columns in each tower, and effectively serve as the central supports of all the open office space flooring from the inside of the building.
Any person truly interested in tha actual "progressive collapse" of each tower, from the point of view of structural engineering, from the point of view of constructing more stable buildings in the future less subject to such "runaway progressive instability" or even from the viewpoint of possible controlled demolition would like to know what actually happened to the core structure, particularly columns in rows 500 and 1000, and in what way they actually failed.
In this thread I have yet to make any connection between damage patterns observed and the use of explosives. To do so accurately will require more information which I have not yet introduced here.
I am simply trying to accurately represent the core box column sections as they were seen after the "progressive collapses".
When we have this accurate representation and look carefully at their ends with our own eyes, we may notice some other peculiarities.
First we form a representative and accurate understanding of what these core box columns, and particularly their ends, looked like. But, you see, neither NIST nor yourselves have actually done this. So you can quote "experts" and the NIST report all you want, but if you yourselves, nor your "experts", have any idea what the recurring damage patterns along the largest and strongest core columns actually looked like, on what basis do you judge how and where they were broken into sections?
Faith?
Let's consider the original comment by Gravy. He said that:
I have been talking about core box columns and have clearly stated so since my first post. Given the resources I have already provided and using other publicly available resources, most readers can easily verify that the statement made by Gravy is either false or the core columns collected, considering only core box columns, couldn't possibly have been a representative sample. For even chilldren, if given the task, can clearly see by looking at a collection of representative photos of the debris surfaces of each tower that the majority of core box column sections are not "badly deformed".
??????
A much more sane an honest question has been posed to me by a number of people, and that is why I see the damage pattern and the broken welds as evidence of controlled demolition using explosives.
I have never answered the question because I never stated in any of my posts that it was. Someone attributed "bomb damage" to me by reading my website, not by anything I have said in this thread.
For the purposes of this thread at present, this damage pattern simply helps us understand what the failure mechanisms were within the core structure, particularly of the core columns in rows 500 and 1000, including columns 601, 608, 901 and 908. These are the largest and strongest core columns in each tower, and effectively serve as the central supports of all the open office space flooring from the inside of the building.
Any person truly interested in tha actual "progressive collapse" of each tower, from the point of view of structural engineering, from the point of view of constructing more stable buildings in the future less subject to such "runaway progressive instability" or even from the viewpoint of possible controlled demolition would like to know what actually happened to the core structure, particularly columns in rows 500 and 1000, and in what way they actually failed.
In this thread I have yet to make any connection between damage patterns observed and the use of explosives. To do so accurately will require more information which I have not yet introduced here.
I am simply trying to accurately represent the core box column sections as they were seen after the "progressive collapses".
When we have this accurate representation and look carefully at their ends with our own eyes, we may notice some other peculiarities.
First we form a representative and accurate understanding of what these core box columns, and particularly their ends, looked like. But, you see, neither NIST nor yourselves have actually done this. So you can quote "experts" and the NIST report all you want, but if you yourselves, nor your "experts", have any idea what the recurring damage patterns along the largest and strongest core columns actually looked like, on what basis do you judge how and where they were broken into sections?
Faith?
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
If the "truthers" believed that there was really "an inside job" or someone other than the {19 "men" who claimed the were Muslim} did it, there would be hundreds at the White House or Ground Zero.
The CTs don't do it because they can't. Why do they pretend it's a game?
The CTs don't do it because they can't. Why do they pretend it's a game?
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Major Tom,
What would explosively cut box columns look like vs. gravity driven collapse box columns?
Do you understand that in a real CD that columns are pre weakened?
How do they pre weaken these columns, and why do they do it?
What differences would you expect to see between the two?
Given what the honest answers are to the questions above, how would you come to the conclusion that the collapse of the buildings were do to CDs?
What would explosively cut box columns look like vs. gravity driven collapse box columns?
Do you understand that in a real CD that columns are pre weakened?
How do they pre weaken these columns, and why do they do it?
What differences would you expect to see between the two?
Given what the honest answers are to the questions above, how would you come to the conclusion that the collapse of the buildings were do to CDs?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Regrdless of what he said because you said this
Major Tom said:
You made a claim and now you are retreating from it because you may be proved wrong. You made a guarantee, are you not man enough to face up to it?
He hasn't been able to produce the photos, has he?
And he won't. This was my guarantee.
Basing further investigation on his juvenile "man challenge"? How old are you folks?
You provide a noisy backdrop, nothing more.
Drs Res, the pre-weakening is being discussed here. First we actually look at a representative sample of the column ends in question, then we discuss them.
Not much accurate discussion is possible without first looking at them carefully.
Multiple angles must be discussed, analyzed and connected to show proof of controlled demolition as opposed to gravity-driven collapse. Angles such as:
1) Study of the core box columns in the rubble (under discussion).
2) Study of the first and most visible major rows of lateral ejections witnessed just after "collapse initiation" in both of the twin towers, but before the blanket of cement dust enveloped the "collapse wave".
3) A detailed study of the "spire" seen still standing after the majority of each building had completely collapsed, particularly in the North Tower. Each visible standing core column seen in the North Tower spire can be identified. It is fascinating to see what columns remained standing in the North Tower spire. Therefore, this spire gives us very unique information as to how and in what order core columns "gave way".
4) A detailed study of lateral ejections seen under the blanket of falling cement dust, well ahead of the "collapse wave". Each lateral ejection can be precisely located and, using the blueprints of the North Tower, we can compare lateral ejections with the layout and structural supports known to exist within those locations.
These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.
Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, while, of course, sticking to the subject originally posted in this thread.
And he won't. This was my guarantee.
Basing further investigation on his juvenile "man challenge"? How old are you folks?
You provide a noisy backdrop, nothing more.
Drs Res, the pre-weakening is being discussed here. First we actually look at a representative sample of the column ends in question, then we discuss them.
Not much accurate discussion is possible without first looking at them carefully.
Multiple angles must be discussed, analyzed and connected to show proof of controlled demolition as opposed to gravity-driven collapse. Angles such as:
1) Study of the core box columns in the rubble (under discussion).
2) Study of the first and most visible major rows of lateral ejections witnessed just after "collapse initiation" in both of the twin towers, but before the blanket of cement dust enveloped the "collapse wave".
3) A detailed study of the "spire" seen still standing after the majority of each building had completely collapsed, particularly in the North Tower. Each visible standing core column seen in the North Tower spire can be identified. It is fascinating to see what columns remained standing in the North Tower spire. Therefore, this spire gives us very unique information as to how and in what order core columns "gave way".
4) A detailed study of lateral ejections seen under the blanket of falling cement dust, well ahead of the "collapse wave". Each lateral ejection can be precisely located and, using the blueprints of the North Tower, we can compare lateral ejections with the layout and structural supports known to exist within those locations.
These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.
Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, while, of course, sticking to the subject originally posted in this thread.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
So you accept the challenge?
Major Tom said:
Resort to truther juvenile insults, last act of a desperate man?
Why do no demolition specialists support the myths promoted by the 9/11 fantasy movement? What does Brent Blanchard get wrong in his Protec paper?