• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Here's another clearer diagram of the truss for you.........
View attachment 67247594

It did not SPAN across the footprint. The hat truss was SUPPORTED on the CORE It was more like a 4 D T and it was NOT like bridge span. The 16 points where the diagonal out riggers connected to the perimeter panels was mostly to tie the core to the perimeter and there was little axial forces transferred to the perimeter.

The diagram attached as you are well aware is a truss spanning an unsupported region. The this was not the case for the twin tower hat trusses. It relied on the core for the vast percentage of its axial support.

You don't see the core columns in there?
 

Attachments

  • truss bridge span.png
    truss bridge span.png
    4.8 KB · Views: 33
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

It did not SPAN across the footprint. The hat truss was SUPPORTED on the CORE It was more like a 4 D T and it was NOT like bridge span. The 16 points where the diagonal out riggers connected to the perimeter panels was mostly to tie the core to the perimeter and there was little axial forces transferred to the perimeter.

The diagram attached as you are well aware is a truss spanning an unsupported region. The this was not the case for the twin tower hat trusses. It relied on the core for the vast percentage of its axial support.

You don't see the core columns in there?

Yes I see core columns there. I see 35 columns above the 110th storey. I also see the interface for the antenna which below you give the impression of relying on 4 relatively weak core columns to remain upright.

One column was omitted in row 8 under the foot print of the the antenna which has a 25'x25' "bearing/end plate" to resist wind loads. The antenna end plate is shown as a dotted hatched area in the attached graphic and you can see only 4 columns are below / inside the hatched area. And there size is smallest of all the core columns. The red hatched represent the main truss chords, Blue hatched steel column braces/floor beams.

It would be nonsensical to put a load like that, especially given it's potential to become eccentric on just those columns. For that reason an interface was designed in order to spread that load. That interface does not depend soley on the 4 columns that you reference above, and a quick look through the drawings that I have provided you with would make that clear, but for some reason you would rather go with figures that you drew 8 years ago rather than the actual structural drawings for the part of the building we are discussing.

Personally, I will trust the structural drawings. You should let me know why it is you prefer your 8 year old diagrams that are a best guess from architectural drawings instead and could not have been informed by the structurals.

EDIT - I will add a question here for you. Which of the core columns do you think would have to fail in order for the antenna to begin to drop. List them for me, by their number. I will go and get you the details of them and post them right here for you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The antenna load was distributed to more than the 4 columns beneath it..... But it is my belief that the columns beneath it did fail and with them the hat truss was weakened in the center and that's where it failed and the antenna dropped.

Obviously for the antenna to drop the support beneath it failed to hold it up. And it did drop before any other movement up there.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The antenna load was distributed to more than the 4 columns beneath it.....
Glad we cleared that up.

But it is my belief that the columns beneath it did fail and with them the hat truss was weakened in the center and that's where it failed and the antenna dropped.

Obviously at some point they failed, they all did. So do we now agree that the hat truss dropping was a first outward sign of failure further down in the building that initiated in the core column area and did not extend to the perimeter.

Obviously for the antenna to drop the support beneath it failed to hold it up. And it did drop before any other movement up there.

Which indicates a severance of the hat truss connections to the perimeter, otherwise there would have been distortion in the perimeter as the hat truss failed and the antenna began it's descent. Those connections, both diagonal and horizontal were substantial and would have pulled the perimeter had they not been severed. We can argue about what exactly would cause that severance, but there can be no argument that the connection remained viable as no movement in the perimeter was observed.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Have the CT'ers got to miniature black holes or miniature dark matter bombs being the reason for collapse yet?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Have the CT'ers got to miniature black holes or miniature dark matter bombs being the reason for collapse yet?

no. But Jeff Prager wrote an ebook saying the towers were destroyed by mini neutron bombs on multiple floors. A one concise alternative explanation has never been developed and proven. You can choose from conventional explosives, thermite, nanothermite, mini neutron bombs, tactical nukes, energy beam weapons or some combination of.

No one has provided a detail explain on how "the inside job" was carried out nor have they provided evidence that it was. What we get is the same discussion of the official reports are wrong. No one has proven the official reports are correct, therefore it must have been an inside job. They continue to cry "we need a new investigation".
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Glad we cleared that up.


Which indicates a severance of the hat truss connections to the perimeter, otherwise there would have been distortion in the perimeter as the hat truss failed and the antenna began it's descent. Those connections, both diagonal and horizontal were substantial and would have pulled the perimeter had they not been severed. We can argue about what exactly would cause that severance, but there can be no argument that the connection remained viable as no movement in the perimeter was observed.

NO!

The hat truss did NOT disengage from the perimeter when the center collapsed. It held together and acted like a structural square donut. 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. 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. 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. I believe col 501 was over 70 stories tall standing alone before it self buckled absent lateral bracing.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

no. But Jeff Prager wrote an ebook saying the towers were destroyed by mini neutron bombs on multiple floors. A one concise alternative explanation has never been developed and proven. You can choose from conventional explosives, thermite, nanothermite, mini neutron bombs, tactical nukes, energy beam weapons or some combination of.

No one has provided a detail explain on how "the inside job" was carried out nor have they provided evidence that it was. What we get is the same discussion of the official reports are wrong. No one has proven the official reports are correct, therefore it must have been an inside job. They continue to cry "we need a new investigation".
Okay. Forget about the planes that actually hit the towers - it was a Rod from G_d and reigned down on the towers by the Russians.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Okay. Forget about the planes that actually hit the towers - it was a Rod from G_d and reigned down on the towers by the Russians.

Good as any of the other alternative explanations. Has about the same amount of evidence to back it up. :lamo
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Good as any of the other alternative explanations. Has about the same amount of evidence to back it up. :lamo
Yeah. Forgetabout the planes that hit the towers that day. They were only coincidences and contributed nothing to their collapse.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No one has provided a detail explain on how "the inside job" was carried out nor have they provided evidence that it was. What we get is the same discussion of the official reports are wrong. No one has proven the official reports are correct, therefore it must have been an inside job. They continue to cry "we need a new investigation".

The official explanation for the collapse of 1wtc is likely incorrect. It was probably a core led failure not a failure caused by the OOS floor trusses. The floor truss design was responsible for the runaway floor collapses.

It's very likely of the design was a traditional grid of columns there would not have been a collapse that we saw.

Essentially the plane caused significant structural damage to the core. The damage to the facade was not a threatening because of the panels' spandrel plates which were able to move the loads around the plane "wound".

The core however was experiencing massive fires over multiple floors which likely cause the initial core column failures to spread and involve more and more core columns... sort of structurally hollowing out the core leaving the core's corners carrying all the loads from above.

The hat truss was like a 3D structural mass although it was made as a truss from steel beams: vertical, horizontal and diagonal. It was composite with and sat above the core and had outriggers to the perimeter to more effectively structurally link the core and floor areas with the facade. The structural was like a square of 3 or 4 stories sitting on and composite with the rectangular core.

But that rectangular core had a growing structural wound which enabled the antenna to drop into the core and for the entire top to drop as a block when the remaining undamaged corner core columns' capacity was not sufficient to carry what was left of the upper block (virtually all its mass).

What dropped at that point (after the antenna drop) was all the floors in the top block and the perimeter wall around them. The drop was not straight down but was slightly laterally displaced.. and I believe had a slight tilt as one side led.

The falling mass was more than enough to kick off the runaway floor collapse some have called ROOSD - runaway open office space destruction.

All remaining column could not stand without the floor as braces... The perimeter panels peeled away and toppled over... the core columns stripped of the bracing collapsed without the bracing stripped by falling floor mass inside the core and they toppled from Euler forces and being way too tall to stand without bracing to keep them perfectly vertical.

This explanation is consistent with the visual record and the engineering/physics which attend.

So in the end it was the long span truss open office space design which led to the runaway collapse and the destruction of the intact lower section... essentially the entire tower succumbed because of that design.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The official explanation for the collapse of 1wtc is likely incorrect. It was probably a core led failure not a failure caused by the OOS floor trusses. The floor truss design was responsible for the runaway floor collapses.

It's very likely of the design was a traditional grid of columns there would not have been a collapse that we saw.

Essentially the plane caused significant structural damage to the core. The damage to the facade was not a threatening because of the panels' spandrel plates which were able to move the loads around the plane "wound".

The core however was experiencing massive fires over multiple floors which likely cause the initial core column failures to spread and involve more and more core columns... sort of structurally hollowing out the core leaving the core's corners carrying all the loads from above.

The hat truss was like a 3D structural mass although it was made as a truss from steel beams: vertical, horizontal and diagonal. It was composite with and sat above the core and had outriggers to the perimeter to more effectively structurally link the core and floor areas with the facade. The structural was like a square of 3 or 4 stories sitting on and composite with the rectangular core.

But that rectangular core had a growing structural wound which enabled the antenna to drop into the core and for the entire top to drop as a block when the remaining undamaged corner core columns' capacity was not sufficient to carry what was left of the upper block (virtually all its mass).

What dropped at that point (after the antenna drop) was all the floors in the top block and the perimeter wall around them. The drop was not straight down but was slightly laterally displaced.. and I believe had a slight tilt as one side led.

The falling mass was more than enough to kick off the runaway floor collapse some have called ROOSD - runaway open office space destruction.

All remaining column could not stand without the floor as braces... The perimeter panels peeled away and toppled over... the core columns stripped of the bracing collapsed without the bracing stripped by falling floor mass inside the core and they toppled from Euler forces and being way too tall to stand without bracing to keep them perfectly vertical.

This explanation is consistent with the visual record and the engineering/physics which attend.

So in the end it was the long span truss open office space design which led to the runaway collapse and the destruction of the intact lower section... essentially the entire tower succumbed because of that design.

What I accept is hijacks, crash, damage, fire, collapse for WTC 1,2.

I have stated many threads posts and years ago that we will never really know what failed first. No one was inside to see the amount of crash damage and exactly how the fire spread within the buildings. The official report was a probable explanation based on the evidence at the time.
 
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 ?
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

What I accept is hijacks, crash, damage, fire, collapse for WTC 1,2.

I have stated many threads posts and years ago that we will never really know what failed first. No one was inside to see the amount of crash damage and exactly how the fire spread within the buildings. The official report was a probable explanation based on the evidence at the time.

Hard to prove anything... we don't have enough data to work with... and it would be a very complex series of computations of multiple elements interacting over time.

One can make a theoretical model of the progression of the destruction until loss of axial capacity for the tops which then dropped. My model for 1wtc I call sink hole top drop. It essentially is that the core became structurally hollowed out until there were too few columns left to support the top. The structural hollowing of the core was driven by heated braces expanding and laterally displacing core columns causing them to buckle. The heated beams were surrounding the plane destroyed columns and pushing inward toward the missing/destroyed column area. The (inward) pushing cause the surrounding columns (to the initial damage) to fail and then the next "ring" out got pushed in until the corners of core were what was left holding up the top. The antenna drop was the tell tale sign that the center of the core was structurally hollowed out. The hat truss which was structurally like an end plate for the rectangular plan tower... but it lost its center as the columns below failed leaving as I noted... a rectangular donut shape. The failure of the corner of the core led the entire top dropping and that led to the runaway floor collapse, the peeling off of the wall column/panels... and the ultimate collapse of the outer core columns.

The push of the expanding beams did not have to be more than a fraction of an inch... as this could lead to inadequate bearing area for the upper pushed column. Columns needed to be "co linear" to transfer the loads properly.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The antenna drop was the tell tale sign that the center of the core was structurally hollowed out. The hat truss which was structurally like an end plate for the rectangular plan tower... but it lost its center as the columns below failed leaving as I noted... a rectangular donut shape.

Wouldn't have mattered if the very centre of the core was hollowed out or not. That wouldn't have caused movement in the antenna as observed. You are underestimating the hat truss and perhaps more importantly you are underestimating the antenna interface........

Diagram of the antenna interface.
hat truss ABA.jpg

Picture of antenna interface....
https://imgur.com/a/4CvVEok
dsc00168s.jpg

You've got the drawings that go to the hat truss (book 9) so there's no excuse for you to suppose that this would begin to descend just because a few central columns failed. As you can see, this was substantially connected to the outer cores, and also out to the perimeter of the building itself.

Your "hollowed out" theory lives up to it's name. It's hollow, and it's out.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You are not understanding what I said. The hat truss lost support in its center... i including the columns directly under the 25'x25' end plate. The structural hollowing out of the core had grown outward toward to corners which were the last intact core columns. The columns directly beneath were the among the first to fail, but by the time the antenna dropped the central portion of the core had no support and it buckled. How would a bridge span fail if it was over loaded? at its center buckling. In the case of the hat truss the downward load was not resisted because it's support was the columns below it and they were being rendered useless as the fire heated beams pushed them out of alignment.

If the antenna dropped BEFORE the top did... and we can see it did drop first. We conclude that the support beneath it failed.. and that would be the center of the hat truss... and in the center of the hat truss and below its center were a number of core columns. For the antenna to drop those columns had to have failed. There is no other explanation for the antenna movement
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You are not understanding what I said. The hat truss lost support in its center... i including the columns directly under the 25'x25' end plate. The structural hollowing out of the core had grown outward toward to corners which were the last intact core columns. The columns directly beneath were the among the first to fail, but by the time the antenna dropped the central portion of the core had no support and it buckled. How would a bridge span fail if it was over loaded? at its center buckling. In the case of the hat truss the downward load was not resisted because it's support was the columns below it and they were being rendered useless as the fire heated beams pushed them out of alignment.

If the antenna dropped BEFORE the top did... and we can see it did drop first. We conclude that the support beneath it failed.. and that would be the center of the hat truss... and in the center of the hat truss and below its center were a number of core columns. For the antenna to drop those columns had to have failed. There is no other explanation for the antenna movement

Sander. You have the drawings now. I know that it must hurt to have that to which you have clung for over 8 years proven to be wrong, but no amount of inane gum flapping will change the reality of it.

Again. Which specific number columns are you talking about and I will get you the structural details from the original drawings and post them right here in this thread and illustrate to you exactly where you are wrong.
It's not difficult. Just state what columns failed.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

For example....

The hat truss did not span from facade to facade...........It was not like a truss bridge spanning over an opening

Yes it did. That is how it functions.
hat truss brdg.jpg
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Have the CT'ers got to miniature black holes or miniature dark matter bombs being the reason for collapse yet?

No, but they have shown the NIST theory to be invalid.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

For example....



Yes it did. That is how it functions.
View attachment 67247893

WRONG

The perimeter did not solely support the axial loads of the antenna.

I don't need to look at the drawings. I know the locations of the core columns.... I know where the chords of the hat truss were and where the diagonals of the truss were. I also know that the connections of the hat truss were what failed and the did so because the forces on them changed when the columns in the core were "structurally" non performing.

There is no other explanation.

The the antenna axial loads were transferred ONLY the the diagonals you highlight, the facade would likely have bulged out as the truss deformed. It did not, the center of the truss collapsed.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

WRONG

The perimeter did not solely support the axial loads of the antenna.

Did the hat truss span the width of the building? Yes or No ?

I don't need to look at the drawings.

You really do, because your 8 year old diagrams are bunk. Useless. (I do accept they were a best guess at the time 8 years ago)

I know the locations of the core columns.... I know where the chords of the hat truss were and where the diagonals of the truss were.

Describe the diagonals on CC605 then. Briefly.

I also know that the connections of the hat truss were what failed and the did so because the forces on them changed when the columns in the core were "structurally" non performing.

You know nothing of the sort. How was the hat truss connected to the antenna interface. Briefly.

There is no other explanation.

YOU have no other explanation.

The the antenna axial loads were transferred ONLY the the diagonals you highlight, the facade would likely have bulged out as the truss deformed. It did not, the center of the truss collapsed.

The antenna axial loads were transferred through EVERY diagonal and horizontal brace in the hat truss and the interface. You're simply wrong.

Again. Give me the numbers of the cores that you think had to go in order for the antenna to fail and we can examine the actual structural drawings for them right here in this thread. You seem very hesitant to do so for someone who claims to be so sure about what happened to this structure.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Did the hat truss span the width of the building? Yes or No ?

NO it was a truss structure which cantilevered over the core and had what are called outriggers connect to the inside spandrels of the facade


You really do, because your 8 year old diagrams are bunk. Useless. (I do accept they were a best guess at the time 8 years ago)

They were schematic and for that they are fine

Describe the diagonals on CC605 then. Briefly.

Why?

You know nothing of the sort. How was the hat truss connected to the antenna interface. Briefly.

antenna was welded to the top center portion of the hat truss members

YOU have no other explanation.

The antenna axial loads were transferred through EVERY diagonal and horizontal brace in the hat truss and the interface. You're simply wrong.

I did not say they weren't transferred.


Again. Give me the numbers of the cores that you think had to go in order for the antenna to fail and we can examine the actual structural drawings for them right here in this thread. You seem very hesitant to do so for someone who claims to be so sure about what happened to this structure.

Not important... the central core columns failed. With those failures the Hat Truss was largely unsupported in its center and DID have to span across the core which it was not designed to do. When enough support of the HT was gone it buckled.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No, but they have shown the NIST theory to be invalid.

What has been shown that Cters are all liars
case in point the guy on here who claims he is a flight instructor yet has no clue what ground effect is
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I don't think all truthers are liars. Some simply are believing things they don't or can't actually understand and simply repeat what other people say who they believe are honest. Many are capable of understanding but are willfully "ignorant" because they have an overview where they cannot believe or trust the media or the USG.

The thing is the media does make mistakes, does have huge free market capitalist/pro war bias and defer to "official sources". But there are alt media which may be better for some things.

Not all information is censored and people can find alternate information about 9/11 which is not about conspiracy but about the technical matters.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I don't think all truthers are liars. Some simply are believing things they don't or can't actually understand and simply repeat what other people say who they believe are honest. Many are capable of understanding but are willfully "ignorant" because they have an overview where they cannot believe or trust the media or the USG.

The thing is the media does make mistakes, does have huge free market capitalist/pro war bias and defer to "official sources". But there are alt media which may be better for some things.

Not all information is censored and people can find alternate information about 9/11 which is not about conspiracy but about the technical matters.

I don't think that all would be debunkers are liars either. Some, like yourself simply believe things that they don't know or understand. Your willful ignorance can be demonstrated in your unwillingness to account for the content in the original structural drawing books and compare that to what you guessed years ago and produced some very neat and well presented diagrams to illustrate that guess.

But that neatness and presentation does not indicate accuracy, but rather serves only to make your many errors clear. For example, you suppose that the antenna failure is inextricably linked to the core columns that are central to the group and directly beneath it. They do not however directly support the antenna interface. It is in fact supported by the main columns toward the perimeter of the core group, most notably, columns 503A + 504A, 701A + 801A, 1003A + 1004A, 708A + 807A in addition to the 3 columns at each corner.

You talk a good enough game Sander, and you compose a mean diagram, but there is no sense in your suppositions. The weakest columns in the group that are directly below the interface are exactly the ones that the designers did NOT want to exert a direct gravity load or lateral force on precisely because of the fact that they are relatively weak to the ones that I listed above.

You have some great diagrams, but there is no sense in them. They are quite simply a guess that you took 8 years or so ago and are entirely wrong. That is the reason that you refuse to account for the original drawings, and until you do account for them, you remain entirely willfully ignorant.

By your own admission you do "basic engineering", yet you cannot even get the basics correct, and are unwilling to check your work against the new information that we know to be correct for that very reason. It is at that point that someone changes from being willfully ignorant, to knowingly deceptive. And you are provably so.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom