Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

Yes i could dummy.......remove every sheet and not shit would happen except see into the next room......a house is built, framing and the roof is sheeted.......once it's dried in the finish crews come in.....that I ncludes the drywall dummy.

I don't know why i wasted my time, if you're dumb enough to think 5/8 thick sheetrock is structural, should have held up numerous tons of concrete from falling then you're dumber than the gyp board and mud under the paint.

Dumbass!

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

Scotty was an adult, just like Steve who is really pissed at you.

payne1000

I am not referring to sheetrock by itself. We are discussing the sheetrock stud walls which were in the Twin Towers. They were steel stud walls and they had a lot more vertical structural strength than the sheetrock stud walls which hold up your roof along with any second or third floor in your home. I'm sure you know this but as usual your agenda here forces you to post ridiculous lies.
If you were posting under your real name, you'd be extremely embarrassed by the absurdity of the lies you post.

payne1000

But you don't qualify as an adult.
I don't know any Steve on this forum.
Is this someone you conspire with by PM?

payne1000

Still trying to twist my comments to mean something totally different than what I say? You're as devious as emarine and BR.
Sheetrock is only a component of a stud wall. Sheetrock, when screwed firmly to the studs on both sides adds considerable strength to the wall. It eliminates the need for any diagonal bracing. It greatly increases the amount of weight the wall can support. I'm sure you know all this but like emarine and BR, your agenda forces you to lie and obfuscate.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

Your post is absurd...as usual, 24 ga metal studs are strictly for supporting sheetrock, they have no structural integrity beyond that...pound for pound wood is stronger than steel.....metal studs are used in commercial construction due to the flammable nature of wood....codes in commercial building have flame and smoke requirements that metal meets, wood does not.

There are no stud walls holding up a ceiling, that would be 2x8 in a single story dwelling, 2x10 in a dwelling with a second floor.......the sheetrock is merely attached to that structure for a finish to hold paint, bead board...or whatever the hell you want to dress the ceiling up with.

Stop thinking interior stud walls in a commercial building do anything more than break up the space....plus dummy, most ceilings in a commercial space is a suspended ceiling grid with 2x4 or 2x2 tiles....the walls barely go above ceiling, just enough to hange the shiny 90 known as wall mold that ties the suspended ceiling....dummy.

How many of those floors were open concept with just a ceiling? Most large businesses with hundreds of employees use cubicles. ....there are no walls within the space, except for a few at the exterior for management.

You have no clue and should quit while you are behind.........Punk!

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

Not twisting shit....you have no clue as to what you're talking about....sheetrock is not a component of a stud wall, there are many options to cover the studs as a finish, the stud wall will perform the same if you stapled freaking paper to it, the rock adds weight to the wall....nothing more, no structural gain whatsoever.....get that stupid shit out of your tiny mind............The rafters are what hold the stud walls square....then you screw the rock to that as a finish....again, they will perform just the same if you stapled newspapers to it

There you go again. ...the sheetrock does not take the place of diagonal bracing dummy......

You know absolutely nothing of residential, or commercial construction.......you look really stupid defending your position on both.

Have you walked across your ceiling yet? Avoid those pesky rafters.....they are there just to create trip hazzards when using that sheetrock hwy you are so fond of.

emarine

The sheetrock walls in the WTC towers are all non load bearing ... incorporated into the design for fire codes, division of space, sound proofing & aesthetic value ... even 12g steel studs won't support any kind of real load except small structures ... "You ignore so much of what proves your ridiculous theory to be pure hogwash." your quote putz... the load factors in the WTC towers which was the topic are obviously beyond your comprehension to make such a foolish statement... & you break my balls over detonation velocity & flame propagation speeds for using the wrong term once...putz ...give me a break... your sheetrock bullshit walls didn't make a millisecond difference in the collapse speed of the towers no matter how many football teams you think it will support... you lost your credibility here long ago now you're shooting for your sanity ... although it does sound right .... insane payne or paynes insane...putz

payne1000

I'm going to conduct a test which will prove you and emarine to be totally wrong about the vertical strength of sheetrock.
It will take me a little time. Start worrying.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

You do that dumbass....while you're at it, peel up the corner of your carpet and tell me how far off the slab to the bottom of that sheetrock....hard to have vertical support and strength when it's not even on the ground.....again, the wall supports the rock.......

Be sure to let me know when you're done testing that vertical load theory of yours, my 30 + yrs of dealing with vertical loading and deflection caused by weights would be most interested in your biased findings.

You should stick with tipping over Jewsh gravestones. ....leave the engineering to people like me.....The deniers.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Oh boy, what's next on the agenda, I wonder? Are you saying that the sheetrock installed in the core provided sufficient vertical load bearing strength to withstand the crushing force of thousands of tons of collapsing mass? The only thing that could explain that is a total abandonment of every law of physics and engineering principle known to man.

What do you think happened to all the core sheetrock that was directly in the path of the jets?

You use terms like "massive" and "super strong" to describe the core. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. The core was neither massive or super strong. The core and the perimeter columns were an integrated system, they were not independent load bearing structures. IOW, they worked in concert to bear the weight of the building and to remain resilient enough to handle high winds. The entire design concept of the twin towers was centered on minimizing weight without sacrificing strength and on maximizing rental space.

The floor slabs themselves were 4 inch thick lightweight concrete. The core columns transitioned from steel box columns in the bedrock anchors and the lower floors to H-beams in the upper floors (where the jets struck). Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick.

The PBS SIMULATION is totally irrelevant, pure nonsense. The towers DID in fact collapse all the way to the ground, including the core.

Who said that ALL of the floor truss connections failed at the same time? Under the circumstances, they didn't have to in order for the building to collapse. Once SOME floors began to fail and the tower began to collapse under the pull of gravity, nothing could stop it. For example, many videos exist that show definite floor failures beginning on the east side of the South Tower (81st and 82nd floors) just seconds before the collapse began. This explains why the upper mass of the tower tilted to the east. As seen in the gif image below, the inward bowing of the perimeter columns is irrefutable evidence of floor failures at collapse initiation. Most obvious is the absence of any explosive detonations.

.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Get the hell out of the way Payne!!!!
You give them the opportunity to ignore the subject of this thread!!!!
'Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria?'

Here is a refresher from the past BS from our MSM's coverage of Syria:
The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told
https://youtu.be/dkamZg68jpk

Why would Assad gas his own people????
Assad would have to be an idiot. NO motive!!!
It gave the US/CFR foreign policy an excuse to support ISIS and other foreign mercenaries. Those trying to take over Syria.
Who needs another Libya fiasco? ISIS does. That’s who.

BTW; The US backed other regimes that gassed their own people. Saddam Hussein for one in Iraq.
Now we allied with other radical Islam sects and foreign mercenaries, to take out Assad.
Is this another Libya in the making as a result of US foreign policy?

emarine

Man Blade look @ the blinding white light from tons of burning thermite & the massive shock waves from the huge high explosives ... I thought I saw a bunch of Jews with wrench's & hack saws fleeing the scene ...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

'Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria?'

Here is a refresher from the past BS from our MSM's coverage of Syria:
The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told
https://youtu.be/dkamZg68jpk

Why would Assad gas his own people????
Assad would have to be an idiot. NO motive!!!
It gave the US/CFR foreign policy an excuse to support ISIS and other foreign mercenaries. Those trying to take over Syria.
Who needs another Libya fiasco? ISIS does. That’s who.

BTW; The US backed other regimes that gassed their own people. Saddam Hussein for one in Iraq.
Now we allied with other radical Islam sects and foreign mercenaries, to take out Assad.
Is this another Libya in the making as a result of US foreign policy?

emarine

Why would Assad gas his own people????... because he's an ass & has done It before...