Tuesday, September 2, 2014

NIST and MIT Flooring Fraud



Dan Plesse to Jeffrey Harr No secret? First you say "I" beam based floors."There were none." Now you are looking at underside supports of these super strong floors. Are you still maintaining your original statement or not? Reviewing what I already know does not help your case.

Do you have photos of the roof of floors 73-75 which also has this format of super strong based large I-beams supports (photos) which are directing in the path of "bowing theory" by NIST and the first floors under pancake theory by (MIT). The bait and switch comes into play when NIST and MIT switch out the I - beams and replace them with WTC 60 foot long girders.

The point of is concept is fraud not secrets.


http://letsrollforums.com/1993-world-trade-center-t24665p8.html?s=c58a9596241c95a7139424ceb6b7be38&


Here is what I have so far:  Floors 9, 41-42, 75-76 were designed for heavy loads
NIST said that BOTH the 10' concrete layer on each floor and the truss systems [secondary trusses subtracted] failed together. Special floors right under South Tower impact at floor 78 i.e floor 75-76 and many other floors were designed for heavy loads and made of heavy I-beams identical to the core, which also means heavy concrete. All these factors was discussed for completeness but never applied to theory which requires a domino effect.. I think NIST did a lot bait and switch. Lets talk about the heavy floors but in the end the heavy floor design will NOT be apart of any discussion in final the fraud.


Jeffrey Harr I believe what you're referring to were the Sky Lobbies / mechanical floors:
5 mins · Like

  • Jeffrey Harr These would have been incidental with the top portion of the towers being dropped on them.
    12 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse I am talking about the bait and switch of making the I-beam based floors semi public to cover asses. Floor 75-76 had the best chance to arrest the "falling floors" from floor 78. 

    The bait is the disclosure and switch is a theory without support. I don't think the core plays any part NIST theory. The core was just available to do to whatever it did. Again, total fraud.  It almost does not exist at all. It falls because the outer wall fell in all directions and at exactly the same time. Video does show the outer wall falling last. i.e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr31J_kK3I4

    Robertson also said the core fell first.      Leslie Robertson "Central core started down first"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CYF2EsaChU
    Just now · Like
Did NIST subtract the double Truss from their diagrams and computer models like they subtracted parts from WTC 7 cover up i.e. Answer is No! NIST WTC 7 Omissions and Errors list for 2014? Not all Floors where made the same however (above and below) but 9/11 Official theory does not dwell on that fact at all.
Engineering News-Record:
On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking.1  

  • Jeffrey Harr They did bow inwardly until the brackets on the trusses popped. After collapse was initiated, however, the floors began falling, the perimeter peeled outwardly.
    4 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse What happen to the four inches of concrete layer across every inch flooring Jeffrey Harr ? Did NIST include that concrete in their models and the bowing floors scam?
    Just now · Like
  • Jeffrey Harr The concrete was, for the most part, pulverized.
    1 min · Like
    • 9 mins · Like
    • Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr That's not even close to what I am talking about. I asked you what happened to the concrete during the bowing process. Did NIST include the concrete issue inside their bowing theory inside their computer models? Did they plug in the four inches of concrete as a factor? I believe they subtracted that issue completely. 

      Have you ever worked with concrete? 

      2" inches of concrete can support 60 feet floor space without the need double bar trusses.
      Just now · Edited · Like
  • 37 mins · Edited · Like
  • Jeffrey Harr The floor slabs in the towers were poured on thin decking and, in some areas, spanned over 200'. It couldn't support shit without trusses.
    32 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr How many police officials on Flight 175 again?
    32 mins · Like

  • 31 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse Jeffery 200 feet? That the width of one side. 

    World Trade Center 1 was 208 ft x 208 ft x 1368
    World Trade Center 2 was 208 ft x 208 ft x 1362

    60' feet from the core to wall and only 30 feet from core to perimeter wall. 

    Did you answer the question or is this one those times which you refuse to answer the question? 
  • Dan Plesse The point was "10 cm of concrete was ignored by the truss failure theory" meaning the truss failure theory is complete unsupported nonsense.
    2 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse "span of concrete that is 208'x60'." It was not 208'x60 because the core was NOT a rectangle. Look at the diagram .
    Just now · Like
Matthew Moore NIST tested 4 life size trusses with 100% of their design load placed on them (The actual floors of the towers weren't even loaded to anything close to design load) and they still DID NOT fail when exposed to fire....not even one of them!
That was the whole reason they went to 'computer models', so they could fudge some bogus results. 
John Gross and Shyam Sunder are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up.
1 hr · Edited · Like

  • Andrew Johnson Dan Plesse - all very interesting. Are you aware of Dr Judy Wood's 2007 RFC and Qui Tam case - it goes into much more detail about the errors in NIST's report. A lack of response would seem to indicate you do not care about this. Yes or no?
    10 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse Andrew Johnson This topic NIST subtractions which she should have or anyone including yourself could submitted as part of a Qui Tam Case. I am not sure what she focused on but if you would like share be my guest.
    5 mins · Edited · Like
Jeffrey Harr Dan Plesse- It would appear that concrete was included in the NIST investigation analysis.

From pg. 75 of the 'Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers':
2 hrs · Like · 1

Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr "Primary double trusses were interwoven with transverse secondary trusses -- a fact ignored by the truss failure theory" 

So the "transverse secondary trusses" was subtracted ?
1 min · Like

"Figure 5–7. Temperature–dependent concrete properties. 
At ordinary temperatures, the concrete in the WTC floors would have been in compression. As the fires 
raged, the floors would have heated and sagged. When the forces due to the sagging exceeded the tensile 
strength of the concrete, the concrete would have cracked. At the point the concrete cracked, only the 
reinforcing steel and trusses would have been carrying the gravity loads."
Dan Plesse Andrew Johnson Yes I know about it but I was hoping for is your take on it. I asked for the array of issues which she thought needed correction. 

Where did she get the money do these law suites? 

Andrew Johnson Dan Plesse - the array of issues is in the document itself - which you can read. Some basic issues such as calling the destruction of the buildings collapse were noted. Why is the money important? The RFC itself was done by Jerry Leaphart on his own time - so that just cost paper and postage . The later Qui Tam action was funded by Dr Wood herself out of her own money and it was funded by donations (I donated raised over $500) myself. Have you read the books and "about" section. You didn't answer that question.
13 mins · Like
Dan Plesse Andrew Johnson What does the road ahead look like for Judy Wood. What new things is she up too? Why did Qui Tam action end if the cost was low and with new discoveries everyday by me should have renewed her interests and efforts, this action could have been continuous. All I know is she hit a wall.
Just now · Edited · Like
From

Building the WTC twin tower 911 in 1970's 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeAtwC4kWkU Side note: current news 9-11 Records Goyette Ron Paul Podcast.mp3 http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/uploads/2014/08/Opening-the-9-11-Records-Goyette-Ron-Paul-Podcast.mp3

World Trade Center Collapse C-SPAN 2 (3 hours)

Civil engineers and others testified about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers after the September 11 terrorist attack and how the structures failed. They also talked about federal regulations that might help prevent such failures and about problems encountered in obtaining materials from the World Trade Center for testing. 
http://www.c-span.org/video/?168982-1/world-trade-center-collapse



double truss

The fraud has to do with the double trusses which you see below. Are these double truss or subtracted by NIST in their computer models, diagrams and postmortem testing. Basically the double trusses do not exist According to NIST. Note: 
• Laclede Steel (St. Louis, Missouri) fabricated the trusses for the floor panels that spanned the opening between the core and the perimeter columns. They used steels conforming to ASTM International (ASTM) A 36 and A 242, which they made and rolled in their own mill. 
Contemporaneous mill reports indicate that many of the floor truss components specified as 
ASTM A 36 were fabricated with a micro-alloyed steel of considerably higher yield strength.


Did NIST Say something about these double trusses supporting the floors?



They do show that each man truss that both double and single trusses



Sorry False Alarm On I-Beam however we do see a double truss system and the single trusses which also double up on the edges.

9/11 Debunking RKOwens: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained






4 hours ago

please be more explicit because i really dont understand which one of your links, videos and photos is an evidence for a fraud: several old bad resolution photos of trusses that even look red/orange from the below so what? a video of fireproofing (but not on WTC trusses as far as i can see) so what? the laclede formula paper without the date (1967) so what ? (how should i know which one is the original ?) one thing is to suspect (or even know for sure) that there was a fraud, another one is to be able to provide to other people the evidences of that ... if you cant it's a lost of time isn't it ... even if you might be right ...how could i know?
a few seconds ago
The fraud has to do with the large red columns connected to floors which NIST subtracted in their diagrams and was not tested. Basically the large red column do not exist According to NIST.


Chat Conversation End

My link to Oystein's page: read it!!
oh "floor joists" were painted haha
Who said the joists were painted? When were they painted? Which side was painted and why?
here is the under side of the floors
Side view of the floors

before or after painting?, before or after fireproofing applied?
Primer for me was before paint is applied but this is for fireproofing primer?
Do you have details? Was this during the upgrading after the first fire?
NIST FOIA: CAFCO Blaze-Shield II Application Video
www.youtube.com
Chat Conversation End
Seen 2:53am

Only Applied to those massive steel supports right? 

from
 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101042

let me know when you see primer applied


appendix B

the link was in the Oystein references! didnt you see it ?
Did you read 4.2.7?
Exact formulation could not be reproduced!


Chat Conversation End
4.2.7 says trusses and this says Standard Steel Joist Paint  

I remind you that this Nist report was issued september 2005 well before Jones or anybody else started to speak about red chips. Steel Joist or trusses : just different names for the same staff, you are making me loose my time
Chat Conversation End

Daniel Noel

1:22 AM (39 minutes ago)
to me
Evidently yes, someone has addressed this issue. This is what the web page you linked to has done. Unfortunately, analyzing this specific fraud allegation is important and somehow complex. Fortunately, it is not essential, as it does not simplify the analytical demonstration of the twin towers’ criminal controlled demolition and its teaching. Therefore discerning activists who want to fix and save the world through 9/11 Truth will let 9/11 researchers and scholars work on it and will instead reach out using the video record, which clearly shows the controlled demolition.
It bears remembering that the most alarming, and paradoxically least understood, 9/11 subconspiracy is the censorship, the remarkably effective process by which the innumerable institutions, all around the world, that should denounce 9/11 have instead been living the official 9/11 fairy tale as an absolute truth. The 9/11 censorship appears to be the best point of entry into the teaching and the cancellation of the global Platonic theater, which itself may get humanity out of its silly war system. Activism on 9/11 is essential only to the extent that it leads to understanding the global Platonic theater, and therefore is best streamlined to get people to understand with minimal effort the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition, its cover-up, and the censorship thereof. It is doubtful that the alleged fraud you link to can make this work easier. Therefore it is best ignored and its authors are best challenged to show how their work makes it easier to teach the average person the twin towers’ controlled demolition.
Love,
Dan
8 hours ago

It's enough to know that NIST doesn't disclaim the Purdue Animation Modeling which shows the Aircraft Image entering the Towers "Nose Section Intact", only to be destroyed as it progressed through the internal section of the buildings. Impossible in reality.


Chat Conversation End
about an hour ago

Wouldn't matter if NIST did subtract the large red I-beams, because nothing else from their simulation can be replicated. They refuse to give weighting of various parameters, assumptions, etc.






Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr What about floors 74-75? Just under impact number #2? and floors On the 41st and 42nd floors, and any others? 

Question #2 Did NIST include these special floors into their computer models?
Just now · Like
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Search