• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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.

gamolon said:
I don't have PDFs. The book folders I have contain TIF images which is why I asked you for TIF image numbers before. You're going to have to look through each PDF in Book 7 and look at the title block of each drawing and look for drawings CD 200 through CD 220.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity here. When I got these pdf files, there were accompanying "partial media files" folders which I believe were the first set of scans that were used by NIST until the pdfs were prepared in full. I included the TIFF files because I didn't want to go through them all and check they were duplicates and they seemed better quality.

If you're going to be looking through these drawings at length, it's better to use the pdfs because they are complete and set out logically with general notes and an index for each section. Once you get used to the conventions it gets easier to navigate to the element or connection you're looking for.

If you use the spreadsheet that I included the PDFs are all hyperlinked and set out so you can make notes for each one. It will save you trawling through them. The thought of anyone having to go through 2.3GB of book 7 and look at every title block to track down a single connection detail is just silly.

ADD what I will do is set out the elements for you in the other thread. You will see the pdf number then the page number on each image. This probably isn't the right thread for that.
 
Last edited:
SanderO said:
The two way zones do not make sense to me. All the trusses were of two lengths... long and short. There should have been a transfer truss at the corners framed into the core corner columns (actually framed into the corner of the belt truss around the core)
Click to expand...

You're correct about the transfer truss area, but there's no way you're ever going to get Gamolon to see it. The truss forming the transfer into the core corner at c508 is on panel GR1 as per the general layout diagram. At our level of the North tower it'd be this one.
GR1.webp

The double truss at the top marked C32T6 is what runs into the corner of the belt truss at c508. It's connection type is here.
33-1 LQ.webp

As you can see, once the long spans of F1 and most of the long spans of E1B have framed into the side of the short span transfer trusses, there are only 2 bridging trusses that continue South. ( 24T9 and 24T9A ). So you're exactly correct that what might be referred to as the two way zone in terms of floor trusses does not match where the two way zone border is on the diagram that Gamolon got from NIST's report.

Hopefully it makes sense to you that the corners of the floor were attached to 2 sides and a corner of the perimeter, so would have to resist both way, as opposed to the middle areas which wouldn't to the same extent, hence one and two way zones.

I don't have a problem using the terms interchangably between the floor system and structure generally, but I think it's an important distinction that you picked up on, and hopefully one that I have now explained better.
 
gamolon said:
I don't have PDFs. The book folders I have contain TIF images which is why I asked you for TIF image numbers before. You're going to have to look through each PDF in Book 7 and look at the title block of each drawing and look for drawings CD 200 through CD 220.
Click to expand...

The point right before Gamolon realises that he actually got these drawings via me. :lamo
Luckily one of us is of a generous nature.
 
gamolon said:
I don't have PDFs. The book folders I have contain TIF images which is why I asked you for TIF image numbers before. You're going to have to look through each PDF in Book 7 and look at the title block of each drawing and look for drawings CD 200 through CD 220.
Click to expand...

Bit small minded that Gamolon. For you to consider not just posting the pic in order to make me wade through loads of pdfs, because you didn't realise you were looking at files I obtained and also had.

A gentleman would never have considered holding back data like that and making someone scour through endless pages and maybe even 1000s of pics of tower floor systems, in the search for the pics he needed, now would he ?

Untitl.webp

Cheers matey, you'll never know just how much you helped the cause !

Probably done with the floor system debate now tbh, fancy a wee chat about perimeter columns next ?
 
gerrycan said:
Bit small minded that Gamolon. For you to consider not just posting the pic in order to make me wade through loads of pdfs, because you didn't realise you were looking at files I obtained and also had.

A gentleman would never have considered holding back data like that and making someone scour through endless pages and maybe even 1000s of pics of tower floor systems, in the search for the pics he needed, now would he ?

View attachment 67257336

Cheers matey, you'll never know just how much you helped the cause !

Probably done with the floor system debate now tbh, fancy a wee chat about perimeter columns next ?
Click to expand...
Let's clarify a few things gerrycan.

First, I am using the TIF files NOT the PDFs. I went through hundreds of drawings using a TIF viewer until I located what I needed. I found the panel details I needed, I found the references to the bridge truss details that I needed, and I found the actual detail drawings called out on the panel drawings for the bridge trusses. All by using a TIF viewer.

I did not look up or use the corresponding PDFs for each drawing.

You asked me to provide a bridge truss connection and I provided a picture showing 5C. I also gave you the actual drawing number range, CD200 through CD220, where the bridge details were. Since I wasn't using the PDFs, I had no idea which PDFs corresponded to detail drawings CD200 through CD220. If you had a summary available, then you should have been able to search for CD200, go to the corresponding PDF, and start their. There was no reason for you to comb through thousands of drawings since I gave you the range that I found using the title blocks of the actual drawings.

So no, I was not holding information back.

Explain to me how I was supposed to give you the exact PDF of the drawing I was looking for detail 5C when I was using the TIF files?
 
gerrycan said:
The point right before Gamolon realises that he actually got these drawings via me. :lamo
Luckily one of us is of a generous nature.
Click to expand...
Nah. I knew this for a long time. I've even asked you previously for new links to them.

gamolon said:
Are the drawing books you have available somewhere? I think you provided links previously, but I don;t think they work anymore.
Click to expand...
 
gamolon said:
See what exactly gerrycan?
Click to expand...

The zoning ie 2 way Vs 1 way.

We just see it differently. Not interested in getting into a discussion about it frankly. You're entitled to you opinion.
 
gerrycan said:
The zoning ie 2 way Vs 1 way.

We just see it differently. Not interested in getting into a discussion about it frankly. You're entitled to you opinion.
Click to expand...
There is no "opinion". I am going directly with what is quoted by NIST:
TwoWayZone.webp

The two-way zone included trusses in the long-span direction (primary trusses) as well the bridging (secondary trusses). the secondary trusses had additional strength and connectivity to enable them to act in tandem with the long spanning trusses to form a two-way spanning truss grid as shown in zones labeled two-way area in Fig. 1-4.
Click to expand...

I showed exactly what NIST defines as the two-way zone. I showed the panels in that bordered zone to contain heavier/stronger truss than the panels in the one-way zone. I also showed the welded connections of those bridging trusses to the long span trusses.

So no, what I posted is NOT "opinion". You can disagree all you want, but you have not shown what I posted to be incorrect in any way. It agrees 100% with what NIST's definition is.
 
SanderO said:
The two way zones do not make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Take a look at my post above and see how NIST defines two-way versus one-way zones. The areas designated as two-way zones have more robust bridging trusses, as defined by NIST (larger angles and steel rod webs used for the bridging trusses), welded to the long span trusses versus those in the designated one-way areas.
 
gerrycan said:
The zoning ie 2 way Vs 1 way.
Click to expand...
From NCSTAR 1-1A. The diagram from Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson. Design Load Floor Outside Of Core Truss Floors. Matches NIST two-way versus one-way diagram.
FloorDesignLoads.webp
 
It makes sense for the floor areas in the corners to be supported by the perimeter columns/panels on each side. But of course the core side needs to be supported as well by the belt girder and core columns... to the approach is to distribute the corner loads over a length of belt girder on each axis... probably as far as the next column from the corner. This essentially distributed the floor loads more uniformly to the perimeter and the core columns. The floor trusses were at 80" OC, but the slabs probably were also bearing on the belt girder.

Whatever...

I don't know what this discussion has to do with the FORM of collapse... what LED the collapse and how it progressed... because it clearly was not a simultaneous failure of an entire floor plate.

The interesting discussion is how the static structure... failed progressively... what was the straw that broke the camel's back... (origination location) and how / why the failures progressed.
 
imo the presentation of all the drawings is a diversion from the topic of the OP. If gerrycan believes it was an inside job and the destruction was done by a controlled demolition he needs to present the proof of a controlled demolition. What was used, who rigged the building, etc.

AE911T explanation is it was conventional explosives and nanothermite. Jones has moved away from the nanothermite as an "explosive" to maybe it was used as a "fuse".
Prager believes no nanothermite an mini nukes (neutron) was used. If gerrycan has other ideas it would be a could time to express them.
 
Maccabee said:
I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was the guy behind the grassy knoll that brought down the towers.
 
Controlled demolition theories, mini-nuke theories, and other such nonsense are all disinformation, designed to distract and divert from the real "conspiracy" ... which is the overwhelming number of connections Zionist Jews and Israeli deep state have to the 9/11 attacks.
 
Wily Fistergash said:
Controlled demolition theories, mini-nuke theories, and other such nonsense are all disinformation, designed to distract and divert from the real "conspiracy" ... which is the overwhelming number of connections Zionist Jews and Israeli deep state have to the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

Links to the connections, please.
 
gerrycan said:
The zoning ie 2 way Vs 1 way.
Click to expand...
gerrycan,

I'm not sure if I've ever asked this of you or if I did, that you ever answered. Maybe you have.

Do you believe that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition and if so, are you trying to show via blueprints, coupled with video and photos, that the building's collapses could NOT have been the result of fire and/or jet impacts?
 
SanderO said:
I don't know what this discussion has to do with the FORM of collapse... what LED the collapse and how it progressed... because it clearly was not a simultaneous failure of an entire floor plate.
Click to expand...
Read gerrycan's post below. This is where the discussion is at and what all the recent drawings/trusses/connections is about. I am trying to understand what he means by "severance". Does he suspect demolition of some sort or something else? This is why I asked him the question in my post just above about controlled demolition.

gerrycan said:
Keep in mind I got 501A mixed up with 508A in my post to which you were responding.

Looking at the North face destruction in isolation, ignoring the South face events, the corner column 508A does not initially move at the 96th storey as the exterior panels between CC501A and 508A move down but those toward the NE corner stay still (apart from a little lateral shift which might be the cladding).

My logic is that 508 has to have failed in some way further up in order for the antenna interface to begin it's descent, yet if it had there would be observable distortion at the exterior. The initial failure seems to have been to the inside of the corner core columns, keeping the transfer truss connections intact lower down. Therefore there is a severance between the core column 508A around the 110th storey and the antenna interface, otherwise the transfer truss would have failed at points below.

I suppose if we were going through the steps of it, the first point of agreement I would seek to make would be that the transfer truss and therefore CC508A at the 96th storey was not involved in the initiating event.
Click to expand...
 
gamolon said:
Read gerrycan's post below. This is where the discussion is at and what all the recent drawings/trusses/connections is about. I am trying to understand what he means by "severance". Does he suspect demolition of some sort or something else? This is why I asked him the question in my post just above about controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Your quote from Gerry seems nuts.

The drop of the antenna was clearly due to loss of axial support below it... and this included the 3D hat truss. The damage in the center of the core was most likely a result of progression and load redistribution because of the damage of the plane hitting dead center. 2WTC tipped as it fell because the corner column of the core was destroyed not the center as in 1WTC.

The fact that the antenna drop was the first notable movement is a tell as to which core columns were non performing.

And this seems to indicate that the plane was the sole cause of the collapse... It destroyed columns and the fuel spread massive fires.
 
SanderO said:
Your quote from Gerry seems nuts.

The drop of the antenna was clearly due to loss of axial support below it... and this included the 3D hat truss. The damage in the center of the core was most likely a result of progression and load redistribution because of the damage of the plane hitting dead center. 2WTC tipped as it fell because the corner column of the core was destroyed not the center as in 1WTC.

The fact that the antenna drop was the first notable movement is a tell as to which core columns were non performing.

And this seems to indicate that the plane was the sole cause of the collapse... It destroyed columns and the fuel spread massive fires.
Click to expand...

Also these quotes from gerrycan:
gerrycan said:
I disagree that the antenna was structurally dependent on the core columns in the very centre of the group of 35 directly below it, above floor 110.
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
Take another look at the North face as the collapse initiates. CC501 and especially 508 don't descend with the rest of the building, and neither do the exterior columns that are not between them.
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
No distortion at the North face East of column 150, which there would have been had the transfer truss failed, which it would have if CC508 had failed at initiation.
Click to expand...

I am trying to understand his view that core column 508 didn't fail. He used the north face of the tower and how the perimeter columns failed to explain it. He used the "two-way zone" in part of his description, but what he defined as the "two-way zone" was not correct as per NIST's diagram and the corresponding diagram from Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson for the Design Load Floor Outside Of Core Truss Floors I just posted.
 
zyzygy said:
Links to the connections, please.
Click to expand...

Larry Silverstein - Wikispooks
Frank Lowy - Wikispooks
Lewis Eisenberg - Wikispooks
Ronald Lauder - Wikispooks
Kroll Inc. - Wikispooks.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/ICTS_International
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ezra_Harel
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sivan_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dominik_Suter
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/James_R._Schlesinger
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Alvin_Hellerstein
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Mukasey
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Kenneth_Feinberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sheila_Birnbaum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Benjamin_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Stephen_Cauffman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Zelikow
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dov_Zakheim
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Richard_Perle
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Marc_Grossman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ari_Fleischer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Daniel_Lewin
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_Frum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ziad_Jarrah
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
 
gerrycan said:
The presence or relative absence of transverse trusses is in part a reflection of that overall structural characteristic rather than an indicator of where one and two way zones are bordered.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to point it out myself or wait for the inevitable backpedal.
 
Wily Fistergash said:
Larry Silverstein - Wikispooks
Frank Lowy - Wikispooks
Lewis Eisenberg - Wikispooks
Ronald Lauder - Wikispooks
Kroll Inc. - Wikispooks.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/ICTS_International
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ezra_Harel
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sivan_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dominik_Suter
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/James_R._Schlesinger
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Alvin_Hellerstein
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Mukasey
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Kenneth_Feinberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sheila_Birnbaum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Benjamin_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Stephen_Cauffman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Zelikow
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dov_Zakheim
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Richard_Perle
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Marc_Grossman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ari_Fleischer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Daniel_Lewin
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_Frum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ziad_Jarrah
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
Click to expand...

All debunked many moons ago.
 
Wily Fistergash said:
Larry Silverstein - Wikispooks
Frank Lowy - Wikispooks
Lewis Eisenberg - Wikispooks
Ronald Lauder - Wikispooks
Kroll Inc. - Wikispooks.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/ICTS_International
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ezra_Harel
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sivan_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Kurzberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dominik_Suter
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/James_R._Schlesinger
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Alvin_Hellerstein
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Mukasey
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Kenneth_Feinberg
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Sheila_Birnbaum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Benjamin_Chertoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Stephen_Cauffman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Zelikow
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dov_Zakheim
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Richard_Perle
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Marc_Grossman
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ari_Fleischer
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Daniel_Lewin
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_Frum
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ziad_Jarrah
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
Click to expand...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikispooks/
https://www.metabunk.org/wikispooks.t1821/

He did ask for links, which you did provide but he should of asked for evidence which you didnt provide
 
gamolon said:
I also showed the welded connections of those bridging trusses to the long span trusses.
Click to expand...

Didn't someone tell you that those connections were welded long before these drawings were released Gamolon ? i am sure you will remember.

I believe you doubted it and asked for stamped drawings from me as proof. So, now I have provided you with said stamped drawings. Glad we cleared that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom