STJ911.org and Blueprints

[Viper Daimao]

Hey guys,

I somehow got into a 9/11 debate with some lady/girl (never know what to call women in their mid-20s other than chick, and that just seems inappropriate in this situation ) on facebook. Her claims have been pretty boiler plate easy to counter so far (pull it, small fire in wtc7, impossible collapse), but in the middle of the last communication she threw out this web page, there's a lot of nonsense on it like it somehow finding suspect when NIST disproves FEMA's pancake theory and concludes with their floor sagging collapse initiation theory, but I was wondering if you guys could help me with some of the other claims in here. Like the blueprints (first time I've heard this one), or this quote:

"The Commission Report denied the existence of the core columns," he says, "describing each Tower's structural core as 'a hollow steel shaft.'"

I've heard this argument reference but never fully laid out and explained. I'm sure you guys did at some point, I just never saw it. I hope I'm not totally out of bounce bringing up this stuff that you've probably already gone over before, but I didn't see any references to this site in my search.

Thanks for any help you can provide, and I'll be searching in Gravy's information rich pages in the meantime looking for more answers to my ignorance.

 

[funk de fino]

Hey guys,

I somehow got into a 9/11 debate with some lady/girl (never know what to call women in their mid-20s other than chick, and that just seems inappropriate in this situation ) on facebook. Her claims have been pretty boiler plate easy to counter so far (pull it, small fire in wtc7, impossible collapse), but in the middle of the last communication she threw out this web page, there's a lot of nonsense on it like it somehow finding suspect when NIST disproves FEMA's pancake theory and concludes with their floor sagging collapse initiation theory, but I was wondering if you guys could help me with some of the other claims in here. Like the blueprints (first time I've heard this one), or this quote:


I've heard this argument reference but never fully laid out and explained. I'm sure you guys did at some point, I just never saw it. I hope I'm not totally out of bounce bringing up this stuff that you've probably already gone over before, but I didn't see any references to this site in my search.

Thanks for any help you can provide, and I'll be searching in Gravy's information rich pages in the meantime looking for more answers to my ignorance.

I seen a reference somewhere that Oliver Stone had copies of the blueprints to make his film??

 

[T.A.M.]

Off the top of my head, I do not recall what exactly the 9/11 commission report said about the core columns.

I know NIST, which was the investigative body wrt to the WTCs (along with FEMA which did the initial WTC study) has never said there were no core columns. On the contrary, they have mentioned them through out there work. What the commission did or didnt say is not really worth much any way, on this fact, as NIST is considered the standard. At the time of the commission report, NIST had not released their reports on the WTCs.

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Hey guys,

I somehow got into a 9/11 debate with some lady/girl (never know what to call women in their mid-20s other than chick, and that just seems inappropriate in this situation ) on facebook. Her claims have been pretty boiler plate easy to counter so far (pull it, small fire in wtc7, impossible collapse), but in the middle of the last communication she threw out this web page, there's a lot of nonsense on it like it somehow finding suspect when NIST disproves FEMA's pancake theory and concludes with their floor sagging collapse initiation theory, but I was wondering if you guys could help me with some of the other claims in here. Like the blueprints (first time I've heard this one), or this quote:


I've heard this argument reference but never fully laid out and explained. I'm sure you guys did at some point, I just never saw it. I hope I'm not totally out of bounce bringing up this stuff that you've probably already gone over before, but I didn't see any references to this site in my search.

Thanks for any help you can provide, and I'll be searching in Gravy's information rich pages in the meantime looking for more answers to my ignorance.

Here's the quote from the Commission Report:

For the dimensions, see FEMA report,“World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel
columns were 40 inches apart.These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

This is from the notes to ch. 9 on pg 541. The claim that the exterior columns bore most of the weight of the building is also incorrect. But this is all from the flawed FEMA report. It's a shame they didn't have better information on which to base their report.

 

[T.A.M.]

Greg:

Excellent. NIST is now considered the standard investigative authority on the WTC, and it makes note of the columns, in detail.

Tell her the report is based on dated, innacurate info, and to refer to the NIST reports for info on the core columns.

TAM

 

[Travis]

It would be kinda hard to run those elevators through the core if it wasn't hollow to a certain extent. Seems to me that the phrase, "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped," is kinda open to interpretation. It was steel, it was in some sense hollow, and the elevators were in it.

How such a phrase, if interpreted as incorrect and in the commission report, is supposed to imply anything malicious is a bit puzzling.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes...

Rational person: Hollow steel shaft = steel component frame surround an open area, free of connecting trusses, bridges, etc...

CTist: Hollow Steel shaft = elongated steel pipe.

TAM

 

[Travis]

yes...

Rational person: Hollow steel shaft = steel component frame surround an open area, free of connecting trusses, bridges, etc...

CTist: Hollow Steel shaft = elongated steel pipe.

TAM

....and we all know that the buildings were just like a huge tree.

 

[T.A.M.]

full of keebler elves, that inhabit the area provided by the "Hollow Steel Shaft".

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

yes...

Rational person: Hollow steel shaft = steel component frame surround an open area, free of connecting trusses, bridges, etc...

CTist: Hollow Steel shaft = elongated steel pipe.

TAM

Knowledgable person: The core was roughly 28% empty space. The open areas were only between the 47 core coulmns and the beams connecting them to each other. No open space was larger than approx 100 sq ft in an area that was 11,745 sq ft.

Hollow steel shaft is confusing at best.

 

[T.A.M.]

agreed, and open to interpretation, as one can see from above comments.

None the less, I believe NIST has clarified this issue sufficiently.

TAM

The question is, was the confusion purposeful (they knew the difference, but called it as such regardless, to cause confusion), or unintentional (did not have info on the exacts of that part of the WTCs at the time, so made educated, albeit worded horribly, guesses, or simplified for their audience).

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

Knowledgable person: The core was roughly 28% empty space. The open areas were only between the 47 core coulmns and the beams connecting them to each other. No open space was larger than approx 100 sq ft in an area that was 11,745 sq ft.

Hollow steel shaft is confusing at best.

Most of the engineers and architects I have discussed this with have no problem with the term. The definition of 'hollow' does not require a certain percentage to be open or empty, merely that some of it is.

 

[Gravy]

The important thing is that the 9/11 Commission report was in no way an engineering report. Statements it makes about the buildings affected on 9/11 are approximations at best. The same applies to the bizarre but common conspiracist claim that the Commission report is invalid because it doesn't discuss building 7.