• 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]

That looks like it''s from the rood deck and you can see that the frame is not supported on the perimeter wall but some distance in board. Top right is cantilevered too.

The "roof deck" is above the main bridging and connections that top the building. We agree on that right ?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am sure that gap toward the perimeter is to accomodate the louvers and the connection at 90deg from the deck support beams frames into the top of their frame. I dug out a pic from the area there which shows the setback.
107louvers.jpg

I think those might be the transducers that fed back into the elevator system to lower the speed in high winds.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

And a drawing for the North face louver supports, in case you develop an interest for drawings at some point. :)

louv supps WTCI-000030-L-76.jpg
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The "roof deck" is above the main bridging and connections that top the building. We agree on that right ?

I am not familiar with the section through the top floors. I assumed the top floor below the roof was for radio transmitter and electrical gear. The 2 floors below that were for HVAC and mech equipment and maybe tanks???

Does your set have any sections through the top floors?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am not familiar with the section through the top floors. I assumed the top floor below the roof was for radio transmitter and electrical gear. The 2 floors below that were for HVAC and mech equipment and maybe tanks???

I haven't come across the drawings for the antenna interface as yet, but for example, looking at the core area detail above the 109th storey the strap anchors within the core area vary between the 2 towers. Here's some additional horizontal bracing detail around the tower perimeter also.....
image from WTCI-000030-L-60.jpg
image from WTCI-000030-L-61.jpg
image from WTCI-000030-L-62.jpg
image from WTCI-000030-L-63.jpg

Does your set have any sections through the top floors?

Yes. There's about 450 pages of drawings just for the steel from the 107th storey and above.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Does your set have any sections through the top floors?

Here's some detail around the core columns at the 110th storey.

image from WTCI-000030-L-216.jpg

image from WTCI-000030-L-217.jpg

image from WTCI-000030-L-222.jpg

image from WTCI-000030-L-224.jpg
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The core 2 columns in the centre of each side of core rectangle. The difference between Sander's thinking and mine is that he believes that if just the central cores failed, they would take the antenna down too. I disagree with that because it makes no sense to load the relatively weak cores with the antenna and interface load. Much better to disperse that load to the stronger outside rown of core columns - excluding corners - 504,505,708,807,1004,1005,701 and 801 <-- if they don't go, neither does the antenna interface, and neither does the antenna.

Do you think each of the core columns took some portion of the gravity load from the hat truss/antenna?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The core 2 columns in the centre of each side of core rectangle. The difference between Sander's thinking and mine is that he believes that if just the central cores failed, they would take the antenna down too. I disagree with that because it makes no sense to load the relatively weak cores with the antenna and interface load. Much better to disperse that load to the stronger outside rown of core columns - excluding corners - 504,505,708,807,1004,1005,701 and 801 <-- if they don't go, neither does the antenna interface, and neither does the antenna.

Another question.

Do you believe that the Factor of Safety for the core was 3 to 1 and the perimeter facade was 5 to 1? Meaning the core was designed to hold 3 times its load and the perimeter was designed to hold 5 times its load?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Another question.

Do you believe that the Factor of Safety for the core was 3 to 1 and the perimeter facade was 5 to 1? Meaning the core was designed to hold 3 times its load and the perimeter was designed to hold 5 times its load?

Your suggested conclusion seems incorrect. Members are selected for their design load per design tables. I would think that they are selected to be sized such that the service load is less than the design load from the table. I would assume if it was the load from the design table there would be an FOS = 1. If the service load was half the design table load then it would be FOS = 2 and so on.

You would have to look at each member individually. No?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Your suggested conclusion seems incorrect.

It's not my suggested conclusion. It's what Tony Szamboti stated.

Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth - Page 2 - International Skeptics Forum
Tony Szamboti said:
If 20% of the columns were severely damaged or severed then 80% of the capacity would remain. The intact factor of safety of the core columns was at least 3.00 to 1, so a loss of 20% would drop that to 2.40 to 1. So one would have to lose 60% of the yield strength before the remaining undamaged columns would begin to yield.

I'm trying to understand if this is part of gerrycan's understanding of how steel structures function.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Another question.

Do you believe that the Factor of Safety for the core was 3 to 1 and the perimeter facade was 5 to 1? Meaning the core was designed to hold 3 times its load and the perimeter was designed to hold 5 times its load?

The relationship between the core and the perimeter was governed by the need for overall stiffness, and to keep the loads on both as consistent and even as possible. By doing this, Skilling eliminated any shortening issues. I don't recognise the numbers that you ascribe to Tony specifically, but generally I would agree that the perimeter columns would have more reserve than the cores, especially at height.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Do you think each of the core columns took some portion of the gravity load from the hat truss/antenna?

The gravity load from the Hat truss/ Antenna interface / Antenna would have been redistributed throughout the entire frame, including both the perimeter and core. The antenna interface though, through which the antenna load was distributed, was supported mainly by the cores that I listed. It sat directly above the 35 cores between rows 01 and 08 (807 inc) but was supported mainly by the ones that I listed.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The relationship between the core and the perimeter was governed by the need for overall stiffness, and to keep the loads on both as consistent and even as possible. By doing this, Skilling eliminated any shortening issues. I don't recognise the numbers that you ascribe to Tony specifically, but generally I would agree that the perimeter columns would have more reserve than the cores, especially at height.

Do you agree with Tony's math/logic below?
Tony Szamboti said:
If 20% of the columns were severely damaged or severed then 80% of the capacity would remain. The intact factor of safety of the core columns was at least 3.00 to 1, so a loss of 20% would drop that to 2.40 to 1. So one would have to lose 60% of the yield strength before the remaining undamaged columns would begin to yield.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The gravity load from the Hat truss/ Antenna interface / Antenna would have been redistributed throughout the entire frame, including both the perimeter and core. The antenna interface though, through which the antenna load was distributed, was supported mainly by the cores that I listed. It sat directly above the 35 cores between rows 01 and 08 (807 inc) but was supported mainly by the ones that I listed.

Thanks for explaining your understanding.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thanks for explaining your understanding.

You're welcome. It's not as much my understanding of the structure, it's the reality gleaned from the original structural drawing books (in this case, mostly book 9). You have the book, so you should know yourself what this means.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Do you agree with Tony's math/logic below?

I suppose in a VERY general sense, if the damage were proportional to each element's capacity. In reality things don't work like that because damage patterns tend to be concentrated. I don't think that the very general point that Tony is making translates well to the specific details we are discussing.

If the building is being looked at in the sense that the core is one element and the perimeter panels another, then yes.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am guessing that the superimposed live load for each mech floor was around 2,000 tons. One floor had a 2 story mezzanine so let's reduce the load as follows

2 @ 2,000 tons
1 @ 1,000 tons

Antenna load was 360 tons and its base was 625 SF which is .6 tons / SF or 90 tons each over the 4 core cols below it.
assuming (not accurate) that the core columns shared the core loads equally... 1,500 tons / 47 = 32 tons/ col The antenna tripled the loads over the 4 columns below it. So clearly the antenna load HAD to be redistributed and especially so because those 4 were had the smallest capacity of the core columns. If the 360 tons were equally shared by the core columns it would add 360/47=7.7 tons per column.

The perimeter WAS supporting the floor loads but the hat truss added a negligible amount. If the perimeter carried 50% of the floor loads about 1,500 tons... the same for the core columns.

Core columns were destroyed by the plane and then more as the fires cause more columns to fail. As the columns below and through the hat truss failed to carry axial loads the truss buckled above the failed core columns. It was not ONLY the central 4... more columns had failed by the time the hat truss buckled and the antenna dropped through the roof.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You're welcome. It's not as much my understanding of the structure, it's the reality gleaned from the original structural drawing books (in this case, mostly book 9). You have the book, so you should know yourself what this means.

So what in SanderO's explanation do you disagree with? What structural elements from the drawings support your disagreement and why?
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
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

How many people, how many levels of government would have to be in on this? An Air Marshal would have ruined the entire op, so are we to believe it was simple luck there weren't any on these flights? No, orders would have had to be given. And the demolition team that set up these buildings? How many folks would that involve? High hundreds, perhaps even thousands, would have had to be complicit, here. Yet, no leaks? No whistle blowers?

I call BS.

Not only that but folks claiming it was a demolition job, first off there's video of planes actually hitting the towers and if it were an inside job it would take forever for a demolition team to prepare the building for the big blow....and not a soul who worked in the towers noticed these demolition teams working. How strange.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Not only that but folks claiming it was a demolition job, first off there's video of planes actually hitting the towers and if it were an inside job it would take forever for a demolition team to prepare the building for the big blow....and not a soul who worked in the towers noticed these demolition teams working. How strange.

Not true. Months long projects at the towers, including the elevators, were reported by people. One IT guy who worked there DID report that tenants were notified on the prior Friday that all power would be turned off at the towers on the weekend, and tenants were advised to act accordingly with data retention issues.

Those little facts were NOT discussed by mainstream media, naturally.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Not only that but folks claiming it was a demolition job, first off there's video of planes actually hitting the towers and if it were an inside job it would take forever for a demolition team to prepare the building for the big blow....and not a soul who worked in the towers noticed these demolition teams working. How strange.

Truthers concentrate on tiny details like an antenna but ignore the big stuff.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Not true. Months long projects at the towers, including the elevators, were reported by people. One IT guy who worked there DID report that tenants were notified on the prior Friday that all power would be turned off at the towers on the weekend, and tenants were advised to act accordingly with data retention issues.

Those little facts were NOT discussed by mainstream media, naturally.

coincidental.. you and others see a connection to a conspiracy because you WANT to.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

coincidental.. you and others see a connection to a conspiracy because you WANT to.

No links to the evidence of his claim, as usual.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Not true. Months long projects at the towers, including the elevators, were reported by people. One IT guy who worked there DID report that tenants were notified on the prior Friday that all power would be turned off at the towers on the weekend, and tenants were advised to act accordingly with data retention issues.

Those little facts were NOT discussed by mainstream media, naturally.

I guess the perps worked by flashlight/candlelight as they installed the explosives. No power tools either. Must have been hell lugging everything up to the higher floors without elevators.
 
Back
Top Bottom