Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]
NO!
The hat truss did NOT disengage from the perimeter when the center collapsed. It held together and acted like a structural square donut.
"A structural square donut" had me in kinks of laughter, but I do know exactly what you are trying to say, so please don't take that the wrong way. I have tonight learned that square donuts are a thing, which is something that I never knew previously. I knew I would learn something from you eventually ! Thanks.
However, in order for the hat truss to act like a "structural ssquare donut" it would have to disengage from it's perimeter connections. The question is how much of the hat truss was taken down along with the antenna interface in order for that to happen. I would say at a minimum we are talking the area above the central 16 core columns. Even if it were only 4, a dissociation between core and perimeter connections in the hat truss is a prerequisite. Our only point of debate is how large a centre hole the "square donut" had.
No visual evidence that the hat truss separated from the perimeter as it came down. You can see the entire top move down as a block and it was slightly laterally displaced.
Exactly. There is no distortion or movement observable in the perimeter of the North face of the North tower despite the antenna moving over 12 feet downward. The North face then sags slightly at the centre as the antenna descent gains pace.
As it came down the perimeter panels peeled off from the top's bottom and the bottom's top... The top's floor masses began to crash one by one onto the top floors of the bottom block until the floor system up there could no hold and this kicked off a collapse of all open office floor areas right to the ground INSIDE the perimeter panel cage so to speak.
Except for the fact that initially only those perimeter panels that were to the inside of C501 and C508 moved downward and pushed out the panels nearer the corners on either side, but did not initially take them down with them. This along with the antenna movement indicates an initiation event in the core area, and not a floor failure leaving the columns unsupported as the official story would have it. (I do recognise that you don't accept the official explanation either)
The lower block's core columns were stripped of most of the bracing and floors they supported as well and some were left standing after the floor collapse for several seconds before succumbing to Euler buckling.
At that point we could easily be examining a CD though. It makes no difference really to the fact that what we should be looking for is an initiating event other than floor failures, now that we have established that the NIST story is non explanatory and can be discarded.
I believe col 501 was over 70 stories tall standing alone before it self buckled absent lateral bracing.
501 had the advantage of the transfer trusses framing into it though, and as previously mentioned you can see
that there is initially no failure opposite C501**(Edit - Should have been C508 to correspond with the video)** or to the East of it.
Here's a video zoom of the N face where you can see that the panels to the inside of the corner columns 501 and 508 are moving downward, but the panels opposite and outside of those corner columns are being pushed out to the corner, and not descending. For ease of observation, this area and shape exactly mirrors that of the antenna interface, which did not directly sit on either of those corner columns.
https://youtu.be/JR2iRElSCho?t=40
The initiation was a core failure, not a floor failure. Do we agree ?