• 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]

Leslie E. Robertson
American engineer
DescriptionLeslie Earl Robertson is an American engineer. He was the lead structural engineer of the Twin Towers of the original World Trade Center in New York City. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong. Wikipedia
Born: February 12, 1928 (age 90 years), United Kingdom
Education: University of California, Berkeley
Books: The Structure of Design: An Engineer's Extraordinary Life in Architecture
Projects: Shanghai World Financial Center, Bank of China Tower
Awards: Gold Medal of the Institution of Structural Engineers, John Fritz Medal
Organization founded: Leslie E. Robertson Associates
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
No... not true... In actual fact all the NYC AG did was accept the petition. Most likely he will decide no Grand Jury is called for and it will end up in the circular file.

This is no different than my sending a registered letter to the AG with accusations of X committing Y crime. AG office signs for the letter, opens it, looks at the merits and mostly likely will decide it is without merit.

There will be no Grand Jury impaneled to look into the 9/11 attack.
Click to expand...

You're no lawyer Geoffrey, and neither am I. That said, you're probably right about the final result of this petition, but if so, that is just another demonstration of just how dead the rule of law is in this country.

You could also say that the US Attorney was persuaded considerably by what was presented to him, and complied with the law.

If he had found it unpersuasive, he would just send that "registered letter" back to who sent it.

If there is no GJ empaneled, it will be for the same reason that all surviving family members had to sign up for the canned settlement overseen by the Israeli judge Hellerstein. No matter the law, the courts will not allow the Official Theory to be executed.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
You're no lawyer Geoffrey, and neither am I. That said, you're probably right about the final result of this petition, but if so, that is just another demonstration of just how dead the rule of law is in this country.

You could also say that the US Attorney was persuaded considerably by what was presented to him, and complied with the law.

If he had found it unpersuasive, he would just send that "registered letter" back to who sent it.

If there is no GJ empaneled, it will be for the same reason that all surviving family members had to sign up for the canned settlement overseen by the Israeli judge Hellerstein. No matter the law, the courts will not allow the Official Theory to be executed.
Click to expand...

AG doesn't want to waste GJs time or go on fishing expeditions. He they see something that looks like it's worth investigating... the GJ will see it.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
You're no lawyer Geoffrey, and neither am I. That said, you're probably right about the final result of this petition, but if so, that is just another demonstration of just how dead the rule of law is in this country.
Click to expand...

Or it's another demostration on how idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories are.

You could also say that the US Attorney was persuaded considerably by what was presented to him, and complied with the law.

If he had found it unpersuasive, he would just send that "registered letter" back to who sent it.

If there is no GJ empaneled, it will be for the same reason that all surviving family members had to sign up for the canned settlement overseen by the Israeli judge Hellerstein. No matter the law, the courts will not allow the Official Theory to be executed.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
AG doesn't want to waste GJs time or go on fishing expeditions. He they see something that looks like it's worth investigating... the GJ will see it.
Click to expand...

If the AG is a principled and curious man attempting to uphold the rule of law, the GJ will see it.

If the DOJ in DC allows this to proceed unfettered, I will be pleasantly surprised. It's wonderful that Ed Asner is behind it. If there is one good man in the DOJ, maybe Berman is it?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
If the AG is a principled and curious man attempting to uphold the rule of law, the GJ will see it.

If the DOJ in DC allows this to proceed unfettered, I will be pleasantly surprised. It's wonderful that Ed Asner is behind it. If there is one good man in the DOJ, maybe Berman is it?
Click to expand...

Your fantasies are not reality
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
What is the number below each oval (column number)???? Could it be the axial load?
Click to expand...

Which number? I don't see anything beneath the ovels/column numbers.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Which number? I don't see anything beneath the ovels/column numbers.
Click to expand...

in post 1115 the bottom image of the column layout... what is does the number 83 mean below col 501... most of the core columns have a number below them.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
in post 1115 the bottom image of the column layout... what is does the number 83 mean below col 501... most of the core columns have a number below them.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Not sure. Researching to see if I can find out.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

When will the evidence of an inside job be presented?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Gerry do you want to explain what you believe caused the antenna to drop first quickly followed by the top 16 or so stories dropping (crushing up at its bottom)? Where were the structural failures? I have assumed that you do not accept fire/heat as the causes? But can you identify where you believe the non fire/heat causes made the structure fail?

Or perhaps you believe it was fire/heat but from something like thermite or nano thermite?

Or perhaps a few bombs which weakened critical members?

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

SanderO said:
Gerry do you want to explain what you believe caused the antenna to drop first quickly followed by the top 16 or so stories dropping (crushing up at its bottom)? Where were the structural failures? I have assumed that you do not accept fire/heat as the causes? But can you identify where you believe the non fire/heat causes made the structure fail?

Or perhaps you believe it was fire/heat but from something like thermite or nano thermite?

Or perhaps a few bombs which weakened critical members?

Go for it!
Click to expand...

Or planes crashing into the buildings?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gerrycan said:
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.
Click to expand...

gerrycan, would you please explain how you think the antenna load was dispersed to the eight core columns listed above? How did the steel components between the antenna and those eight columns disperse the antenna load so that these eight columns took more of the load than the four center columns directly beneath and attached to the antenna connection? Below is the key plan with your columns noted above in the red boxes.
KEYPLAN2.jpg

gerrycan said:
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.
Click to expand...

What "35 cores" are you speaking of? Is that a reference to 35 core columns? If so, which ones.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Can somebody please explain what this esoteric stuff has to do with an inside job and explosives/magic mini nukes?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
Gerry do you want to explain what you believe caused the antenna to drop first quickly followed by the top 16 or so stories dropping (crushing up at its bottom)? Where were the structural failures? I have assumed that you do not accept fire/heat as the causes? But can you identify where you believe the non fire/heat causes made the structure fail?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just not understanding gerrycan's explanation of what he thinks occurred or what he disagrees with. If the core as a whole failed lower in the structure around the areas of impact and subsequent fire, how does he come to the conclusion that the eight outriggers, connected to the perimeter facade and two central perimeter core columns, would have held the core and antenna up? Below is a diagram of column row 701-708 that I marked up. Core in the red box and the outriggers in the blue. This represents just one of the eight column lines that had the core to perimeter outriggers. Also, the three connections for each outrigger (one to to the perimeter facade and two to the core columns) was bolted.
COLUMNLINE701-708.jpg
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
Can somebody please explain what this esoteric stuff has to do with an inside job and explosives/magic mini nukes?
Click to expand...

It seems that gerrycan is trying to put doubt into the fire led collapse of the core/hat truss based on his understanding of the structural steel drawings and that what was seen visually could not have occured based on those drawings.

At least I think that's what he's getting at. He can better explain when he returns.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
It seems that gerrycan is trying to put doubt into the fire led collapse of the core/hat truss based on his understanding of the structural steel drawings and that what was seen visually could not have occured based on those drawings.

At least I think that's what he's getting at. He can better explain when he returns.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he will give us his full 911 theory.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
It seems that gerrycan is trying to put doubt into the fire led collapse of the core/hat truss based on his understanding of the structural steel drawings and that what was seen visually could not have occured based on those drawings.

At least I think that's what he's getting at. He can better explain when he returns.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting if he will explain the damage done by impact and fire.
I have asked him if he supports the CD explanation and if he does which one? He dodged the questions.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
My guess is that the fires led to beam expansion inside the core where most of the fires were raging. Where columns had collapsed from the plane strike those above were held in place by hanging from the hat truss. The column splices were not designed as hangers and likely began to fail. Heated beams expanded and pushed columns toward the "structural hole" where the plane had destroyed columns. I suspect the entire frame above the plane strike "hot zone" was warping and stressing and failing the steel connections... column splices, beam stub knife connections and so on.

A key to the failure was the collapse of the antenna just before the entire top descended. This is a tell tale sign that the center of the hat truss had failed and the remaining perimeter core columns became over loaded along with the facade. I suspect there were multiple columns pushed out of axial alignment and then descent ensued.

I have no calculations and no proof. This hunch is driven by what I observed.
Click to expand...

SanderO, what are your thoughts on my description below.

At the moment of impact some core columns were severed/damaged/weakened. Nobody knows for sure how many or what proportion of core columns were severed/weakened/damaged. The remaining core columns and the perimeter facade panels that were NOT severed/damaged/weakened at the time of impact had to immediately account for an increased load of some degree. The subsequent fires further weakened columns that were already damaged/weakened from the impact in addition to columns they were not weakened/damaged.

At some point the core failed at the fire/impact levels and pulled the hat truss (in the core area) downward a short distance, maybe bending/deforming the sixteen outrigger trusses causing the hence the atnena to drop a short distance. For all we know, the entire roof inside the perimeter facade may have dropped. I don't think the hat truss detached from the core/core columns as it was highly integrated with it. Again, I think the sixteen outriggers between the core perimeter columns and the facade may have buckled/bent slightly as the core dropped after which the load applied to the sixteen outriggers due to the core dropping finally pulled the remaining perimeter facade down along with it.

See diagram below. I modified your diagram to explain what I envision happening.
COREPROP1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
SanderO, what are your thoughts on my description below.

At the moment of impact some core columns were severed/damaged/weakened. Nobody knows for sure how many or what proportion of core columns were severed/weakened/damaged. The remaining core columns and the perimeter facade panels that were NOT severed/damaged/weakened at the time of impact had to immediately account for an increased load of some degree. The subsequent fires further weakened columns that were already damaged/weakened from the impact in addition to columns they were not weakened/damaged.

At some point the core failed at the fire/impact levels and pulled the hat truss (in the core area) downward a short distance, maybe bending/deforming the sixteen outrigger trusses causing the hence the atnena to drop a short distance. For all we know, the entire roof inside the perimeter facade may have dropped. I don't think the hat truss detached from the core/core columns as it was highly integrated with it. Again, I think the sixteen outriggers between the core perimeter columns and the facade may have buckled/bent slightly as the core dropped after which the load applied to the sixteen outriggers due to the core dropping finally pulled the remaining perimeter facade down along with it.

See diagram below. I modified your diagram to explain what I envision happening.
View attachment 67249163
Click to expand...

Your concept is perfectly reasonable. But it requires that the center of the core region fail enough for the more intact space frame (hat truss) to bow as you show... or collapse in the center leaving the outer "ring" of the HT and facade more or less structurally sound. I describe it as a structural square donut.... you show a structural 3D rectangular solid which sags in its center... preserving connections but distorted. I suspect all the diagonals would mitigate the sagging. Triangles are very strong.

The we need to consider what the central loads were. From above they were unchanged. But we more or less agree that the support of the loads was compromised in the center much as a typical office building grid system would behave if the central columns were removed structurally... the slabs would sag down in the center because the concrete is somewhat plastic. My hunch is that the HT? space frame would not sag but the connections would shear and fail

An enormous load placed on the center span of a truss bridge would see some members buckle and some connection shear I think.

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

SanderO said:
Your concept is perfectly reasonable. But it requires that the center of the core region fail enough for the more intact space frame (hat truss) to bow as you show... or collapse in the center leaving the outer "ring" of the HT and facade more or less structurally sound. I describe it as a structural square donut.... you show a structural 3D rectangular solid which sags in its center... preserving connections but distorted. I suspect all the diagonals would mitigate the sagging. Triangles are very strong.

The we need to consider what the central loads were. From above they were unchanged. But we more or less agree that the support of the loads was compromised in the center much as a typical office building grid system would behave if the central columns were removed structurally... the slabs would sag down in the center because the concrete is somewhat plastic. My hunch is that the HT? space frame would not sag but the connections would shear and fail

An enormous load placed on the center span of a truss bridge would see some members buckle and some connection shear I think.

Your idea is good.
Click to expand...

I think the video below shows things a little better starting at 3:19.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pOuler95c

I see both sagging/bending of some pf the outriggers and what looks to be shearing of some of the outrigger connections to the facade.
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
I think the video below shows things a little better starting at 3:19.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pOuler95c

I see both sagging/bending of some pf the outriggers and what looks to be shearing of some of the outrigger connections to the facade.
Click to expand...

Interesting simulations... what were the inputs? There was no sound. A FEA done by who and for whom?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

It appears in the simulation that the hat truss over the core remains intact, but the outriggers break away from the facade. The HT drops as a unit inside the facade cage which would explain the observation that the antenna came down BEFORE the roof line does.

What iwould be the cause of the drop of the top section facade and I presume the slabs connected at those levels? Would it be destruction of bracing and lateral displacement releasing the top to drop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom