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

[gamolon]

What was defined was where core column 508 is in relation to the perimeter columns. Look at the green panel area being pushed over toward the corner initially.

YouTube

You missed this gerrycan.

You said this gerrycan.


So the main double trusses in the red circles below have also been referred to as "transverse trusses" because of the "perspective view"?
View attachment 67257570

 

[gamolon]

The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation.

The 3 NE panels and the corner column would be 150 - 159, 159 being the corner column. These are the 10 columns furthest East on the North face. Here's where CC508 is in relation to the perimeters.

Column 150 marked in red -
View attachment 67251881

According to your quotes and the picture you supplied above, here is what you are saying:

 

[Thoreau72]

A former CIA man thinks Israeli fingerprints are all over the events of 911, the "Inside Job". So do I and many others. Maybe we're right?

Opinion - Israel's Role In 9/11

 

[COTO]

Don't worry if it has been discussed before. Go ahead and start a thread.

There is really nothing new regarding 9/11. It is mostly a rehash of the same subjects. Dr. Hulsey of Alaska U did a WTC7 study that was paid for by AE911T. The final report is not out. Some have issues with the work for not being open as they said they would and starting the study with a predetermined stated conclusion that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

WTC7 has always interested me the most as well--purely as an academic matter. If and when the report comes out, do post a link.

Is there a particular area of interest for you in the structure ?

The thread is disjointed and it's not really the right thread for this as it's about the structure and not so much any inside job claims.

I was going to mention that years ago I read a whitepaper put out by a structural engineer at MIT who considered the problem: "As a matter of mathematical modeling, how quickly would a skyscraper collapse once an upper floor lost structural integrity?"

I found it lucid and expertly constructed. The conclusions were twofold: that once the collapse started, the speed of the collapse would be nigh indistinguishable from freefall (I can't recall the exact difference in timing, but it was on the order of milliseconds); and that buildings the size of the twin towers would be expected to 'pancake' (i.e. collapse neatly into their own footprints) within very narrow margins. That is, unlike smaller buildings, the towers wouldn't be able to tilt more than (I believe) 2° while standing or collapsing, and there was no particular impetus for them to tilt at all.

It impressed upon me the importance of turning to the equations, which often yield counterintuitive yet correct conclusions.

I've never seen the sense in the "controlled demolition" theory of the twin towers, even disregarding the logistical challenges. One of the things I do like about conspiracy theories like "9/11 inside job", however, is that they're one of the few instances where I see laypeople online researching, hypothesizing, debating, learning, and talking about big ideas. As I see it, whether the theories are correct, partially or entirely, is ancillary. We're never going to be able to prove any of them to an extent they become politically actionable. The value is in the pursuit of truth.

 

[SanderO]

WTC7 has always interested me the most as well--purely as an academic matter. If and when the report comes out, do post a link.


I was going to mention that years ago I read a whitepaper put out by a structural engineer at MIT who considered the problem: "As a matter of mathematical modeling, how quickly would a skyscraper collapse once an upper floor lost structural integrity?"

I found it lucid and expertly constructed. The conclusions were twofold: that once the collapse started, the speed of the collapse would be nigh indistinguishable from freefall (I can't recall the exact difference in timing, but it was on the order of milliseconds); and that buildings the size of the twin towers would be expected to 'pancake' (i.e. collapse neatly into their own footprints) within very narrow margins. That is, unlike smaller buildings, the towers wouldn't be able to tilt more than (I believe) 2° while standing or collapsing, and there was no particular impetus for them to tilt at all.

It impressed upon me the importance of turning to the equations, which often yield counterintuitive yet correct conclusions.

I've never seen the sense in the "controlled demolition" theory of the twin towers, even disregarding the logistical challenges. One of the things I do like about conspiracy theories like "9/11 inside job", however, is that they're one of the few instances where I see laypeople online researching, hypothesizing, debating, learning, and talking about big ideas. As I see it, whether the theories are correct, partially or entirely, is ancillary. We're never going to be able to prove any of them to an extent they become politically actionable. The value is in the pursuit of truth.

Some good wisdom in this post. My own theory about what these collapses show is that the collapse form was in their DNA so to speak. Under normal static loading conditions they could stand until the connections rusted... but because the had a very light long span floor system support by the core and the perimeter... they were vulnerable to runaway floor collapses.... and that's what happened.

7 WTC was a 40 story tower built over a power station and as a result it required multiple massive transfers to move the axial load paths down to the foundations. Once those interconnected transfers failed (sequentially) too much of the axial load paths were destroyed. Further the perimeter moment frame had fewer than half its columns go straight down to the foundations.

I believe it was the designs which did them in... and older designs with more columns and no long span flooring systems might have isolated the collapse and limited it.

Maybe

 

[mike2810]

A former CIA man thinks Israeli fingerprints are all over the events of 911, the "Inside Job". So do I and many others. Maybe we're right?

Opinion - Israel's Role In 9/11

Thanks for posting a source.
The link does nothing to support your theory of nukes or Israel's involvement.
"Now it is just possible that the Urban Moving Israelis were indeed uninvolved in 9/11 "

The article is an opinion piece. A source I question its credibility. Even its the website carries a disclaimer.

"The website carries this disclaimer: "WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website even those based on real people are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle."
World News Daily Report - Wikipedia

 

[zyzygy]

Founded in 2013, World News Daily Report is a fake news/hoax website that indicates they are satire on the bottom of each page. The website features the tagline “News You Can Trust.”44

World News Daily Report - Media Bias/Fact Check

I see that truthers are applying their usual high standards for evidence. :lamo

 

[gerrycan]

You missed this gerrycan.

Yeah. Transverse trusses. Trusses that get called transverse because they are running at 90 degrees to the perspective of the panel they are on, or 90 degrees from the perspective being discussed.

A bridging truss, a primary truss, any could be transverse.

 

[gerrycan]

I recall seeing a blast of smoke and debris

What you did in the 60s has nothing to do with the topic Sander.

( I should clarify - I meant this in a Woodstock kind of way )

coming through the west facade up at the 102nd floor... something exploded. This was likely at the column end to end splice level and 3 stories (one column length) above the starboard entry of the plane's wing tip.View attachment 67257624

You do see the panel that i marked in green being pushed out to the East though. And it's fairly clear that it wasn't sagging floor trusses that pulled in perimeters, especially those over at the 2 way SW corner.

 

[Thoreau72]

Thanks for posting a source.
The link does nothing to support your theory of nukes or Israel's involvement.
"Now it is just possible that the Urban Moving Israelis were indeed uninvolved in 9/11 "

The article is an opinion piece. A source I question its credibility. Even its the website carries a disclaimer.

"The website carries this disclaimer: "WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website even those based on real people are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle."
World News Daily Report - Wikipedia

Yes of course Mike. If the opinion piece had been written by George W. Bush, you would see it as gospel. You rock Michael. :lamo

 

[mike2810]

Yes of course Mike. If the opinion piece had been written by George W. Bush, you would see it as gospel. You rock Michael. :lamo

What part of their disclaimer confused you? Was it the satirical, fictional nature or both?:lamo

We are world apart on what is a creditable sources. At least you provided one for us to see what you use for your information.

 

[Quag]

What part of their disclaimer confused you? Was it the satirical, fictional nature or both?:lamo

We are world apart on what is a creditable sources. At least you provided one for us to see what you use for your information.

Like we didn't already know he used lying CT sites for his multiple mutually exclusive CTs

 

[mike2810]

Like we didn't already know he used lying CT sites for his multiple mutually exclusive CTs

I go to many of the sites CT posters use. If the subject is interesting enough I look at who is behind the site, the articles posted and the authors. I do the same for professional sites, research sites, etc. Check and verify.

We all have different views of what is creditable. If I was looking for information on a air tanker accident, Veterans Today or World News Daily would not be my go to sources. Well establish professional aeronautical publication sites, the actual accident investigation report, etc. would be more applicable.

Many investigations are done my the government. That is local, State, or Federal agencies. Many professional organizations and Universities carry out research or studies of major incidents. Until their reports are proven false, I will go with them.

 

[gerrycan]

According to your quotes and the picture you supplied above, here is what you are saying:
View attachment 67257625

No Gamolon. According to you that is what I am saying.
What I actually did say was "The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation."

So, in which direction are the columns being pushed in this pic ?

East.

In which direction is theedge of the two way zone being pushed ?

East.

How would you describe the area toward the centre of the building that is pushing the edge of the 2 way zone to the East Gamolon ?

One way zone maybe ?

 

[Quag]

I go to many of the sites CT posters use. If the subject is interesting enough I look at who is behind the site, the articles posted and the authors. I do the same for professional sites, research sites, etc. Check and verify.

We all have different views of what is creditable. If I was looking for information on a air tanker accident, Veterans Today or World News Daily would not be my go to sources. Well establish professional aeronautical publication sites, the actual accident investigation report, etc. would be more applicable.

Many investigations are done my the government. That is local, State, or Federal agencies. Many professional organizations and Universities carry out research or studies of major incidents. Until their reports are proven false, I will go with them.

A good way to look at things but since HDs motto is "why would you trust known liars" and he gets all his info from known lying CT sites it is amsuing

 

[gamolon]

No Gamolon. According to you that is what I am saying.
What I actually did say was "The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation."

Correct! You DID say that!

You made the distinction between the two-way zone and the one-way zone. You separated the two-way zone from the one-way zone with the following two characteristics from your quote:

1. The two-way zone didn't initially descend with the one-way zone. WHERE IS THE SEPARATION POINT/BORDER between the two-way and one-way zones that you see the one-way zone descending and the two-way zone NOT descending? How about in a screenshot from the video you mark the one-way zone descending and the two-way zone NOT descending. Put a border around the independent zones.

2. The two-way zone, rather than descending with the one-way zone, was instead pushed east AS CAN BE SEEN BY THE ALUMINUM CLADDING.This means that the aluminum cladding is in the two-way zone and the cladding to the right is not as it is NOT being pushed.

Again. You put forth two characteristics that separate the two-way zone from the one-way zone.

What information did you use to make that distinction?

 

[gamolon]

Yeah. Transverse trusses. Trusses that get called transverse because they are running at 90 degrees to the perspective of the panel they are on, or 90 degrees from the perspective being discussed.

A bridging truss, a primary truss, any could be transverse.

Show me any WTC1/WTC2 documentation or website where the main floor trusses (long span) were EVER referred to as "transverse trusses". The bridging trusses that ran perpendicular to the main/double floor trusses were referred to as being the "transverse trusses". The diagram below PROVES that your definition is wrong and the callout of a transverse truss has nothing to do with the "perspective view". Otherwise the the "Main Double Trusses" in the diagram below in the red ovals would have been called out as "transverse trusses" instead of the "Main Double Truss" and the "Transverse Truss" would have been called out as the "Bridging Truss".

 

[gerrycan]

Show me any WTC1/WTC2 documentation or website where the main floor trusses (long span) were EVER referred to as "transverse trusses". The bridging trusses that ran perpendicular to the main/double floor trusses were referred to as being the "transverse trusses". The diagram below PROVES that your definition is wrong and the callout of a transverse truss has nothing to do with the "perspective view". Otherwise the the "Main Double Trusses" in the diagram below in the red ovals would have been called out as "transverse trusses" instead of the "Main Double Truss" and the "Transverse Truss" would have been called out as the "Bridging Truss".

View attachment 67257683

Transverse is a relative term Gamolon. Things aren't transverse by themselves but transverse in relation to whatever the longitudinal axis of perspective is.

 

[gerrycan]

Show me any WTC1/WTC2 documentation or website where the main floor trusses..........

here are NIST in one of their WTC reports describing movement as being "transverse to the wind" direction.

Transverse means at 90 degrees to whatever the longitudinal perspective is, and that perspective can change just like the wind direction in NIST's example could, and if it changed by 90 degrees, all the things that WERE transverse would no longer be so.

"Similar to the other tests described above, test results for the single-tower model indicated that the most severe oscillations were transverse to the wind and occurred with the wind blowing within a small range of angles on either side of the normal to a face."

Transverse is a relative term and the long span trusses ran transverse to the longitudinal axis of the short span one way zones. The fact that you are now looking for a direct quote from NIST stating the obvious is telling.

 

[gamolon]

here are NIST in one of their WTC reports describing movement as being "transverse to the wind" direction.

Yeah. MOVEMENT. Not in regards to the floor truss component callouts based on view perspective like you thought.

Transverse means at 90 degrees to whatever the longitudinal perspective is, and that perspective can change just like the wind direction in NIST's example could, and if it changed by 90 degrees, all the things that WERE transverse would no longer be so.

I know what "transverse" means gerrycan so stop implying that I don't. This has to do with component definitions and callouts in regards to references and the drawings.

If you are correct, find me ONE example of the main/double/long span floor trusses being called out as a "transverse truss" which YOU think is supposedly based on the view perspective of the drawing. Should be VERY easy to do right?

Transverse is a relative term and the long span trusses ran transverse to the longitudinal axis of the short span one way zones. The fact that you are now looking for a direct quote from NIST stating the obvious is telling.

Again, the main/double/long span floor trusses were NEVER called out as "transverse trusses" on the drawings. Show me ONE example of this in all the thousands of drawings you have access to. You should be able to find ONE gerrycan. They may have run transverse to other components, but were never called out as such or referred to as "transverse trusses".

From a drawing/construction/blueprint standpoint you're just WRONG and you know it. Calling out a "transverse truss" on a drawing based on the view perspective is NOT what was done in regards to the WTC drawings. The term "transverse truss" in regards to the WTC towers always referred to the bridging/secondary trusses. I can find hundreds of examples to prove my point. You can find NONE.

 

[gamolon]

Things aren't transverse by themselves but transverse in relation to whatever the longitudinal axis of perspective is.

gerrycan.

It's a component callout on every drawing. I don't care what YOU want to shoehorn into your argument in order to make it seem that you are correct. When discussing the WTC towers and their drawings, the term "transverse truss" ALWAYS refers to the secondary/bridging trusses. That term NEVER referred to the main/double/long span floor trusses nor it used to call out components based on drawing perspective. You made that up. Which is why you can't find just ONE example of the main/double/long span floor trusses being labeled/called out as a "transverse truss".

 

[gamolon]

Transverse is a relative term Gamolon. Things aren't transverse by themselves but transverse in relation to whatever the longitudinal axis of perspective is.

So according to you, the drawing I posted should have the main/double/long span truss called out as "transverse truss" because of the view perspective. Why is it not?

 

[gerrycan]

So according to you, the drawing I posted should have the main/double/long span truss called out as "transverse truss" because of the view perspective. Why is it not?

When did I say that ?

Stop making stuff up Gamolon. 3 days to learn the meaning of one word and you're still struggling with it.

 

[gamolon]

When did I say that ?

Oh boy...

Below is my quote where I asked you if the main double trusses in the red circles have also been referred to as "tranverse trusses" because of the "perspective view". To which you replied "Yeah." in the following quote. I put the "Yeah." in nice, big, red letters so you couldn't miss it.

You said this gerrycan.


So the main double trusses in the red circles below have also been referred to as "transverse trusses" because of the "perspective view"?
View attachment 67257570

Yeah. Transverse trusses. Trusses that get called transverse because they are running at 90 degrees to the perspective of the panel they are on, or 90 degrees from the perspective being discussed.

A bridging truss, a primary truss, any could be transverse.

One more time. YOU are the one that claimed the WTC main/double/long span trusses have been referred to as "transverse trusses". Find me ONE example. Time to put up or shut up.

 

[gerrycan]

Oh boy...

Below is my quote where I asked you if the main double trusses in the red circles have also been referred to as "tranverse trusses" because of the "perspective view". To which you replied "Yeah." in the following quote. I put the "Yeah." in nice, big, red letters so you couldn't miss it.





One more time. YOU are the one that claimed the WTC main/double/long span trusses have been referred to as "transverse trusses". Find me ONE example. Time to put up or shut up.

I said they were transverse from a PERSPECTIVE. Which is what I am still saying.
You will find that trusses that run at 90 degrees to the rpimary span - ie TRANSVERSE to it will be called bridging inside the one way zones and out to the core corners and transverse in the corners of the building. I wonder why that might be.