Evidence Of Explosives Hurling North Tower 4 Ton

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Evidence Of Explosives Hurling North Tower 4 Ton; Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof
Topic Started: Oct 28 2008, 09:49 AM (926 Views)
SPreston	Oct 28 2008, 09:49 AM Post #1
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Quote: The Pulverized Office Contents, The Pulverized Human Remains, and The Steel Outer Wall Units land up to 600 feet from the base of the Tower. Original image Pressure was applied outward in all directions, at all levels. The 'Point of Origin' of this pressure wave is evident. Photographs and videos. The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE. A loyal WTC firefighter victim family member presents conclusive evidence that explosives blew 4-ton exterior wall sections 600 feet away from the North Tower to land upon the glass roof of the Winter Gardens building. Quote: C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower. Quote: In memory of: Vincent Princiotta F.D.N.Y. Engine 16, Ladder 7 Killed on 9/11/01 Sal J. Princiotta F.D.N.Y. Engine 33, Ladder 9 Killed on 5/1/07 Quote: Original image The roof damage to the Winter Gardens is 600 feet from the base of the tower. Original image The 4-Ton steel Outer Wall Units from the Sky Lobby level had 8 seconds to travel the 600 ft. These 4-Ton Units exited the North Tower at near 55 MPH. Original image Some force was strong enough to accelerate hundreds of 4-ton steel Outer Wall Units from 0 to over 50 MPH in 0.09 sec. and eject the material over 500 ft. out over Lower Manhattan. This brief force was present, pushing in all directions, for an average time period of- Approximately 0.09 sec. on each floor. Every floor. 110 floors. REMARKABLY This Same Force Pattern was present in The South Tower/Marriott The Same Force was present at The Same Floor Levels and with The Same Results. The same pressure wave evidence in both North and South towers. From the same floor levels, the same wall sections are blown the same distances. C.S.I. 9/11 Edited by SPreston, Oct 28 2008, 09:50 AM.



SPreston	Oct 28 2008, 10:37 AM Post #2
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Quote: Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower. Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: "I am very deeply interested in learning the details and the truth of the Crime of 9/11. I approach it as a crime scene investigation I live in Anchorage, Alaska. I am a Grass Root Contact for www.911truth.org . I support NO conspiracy theory. I examine the evidence. I do the math. I focus only on the irrefutable evidence, the weights and measures and the math and physics of the three towers destruction. "There were pre-planted explosives in all three towers." C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta I give a presentation of this evidence here in Anchorage every Tuesday evening 7:00 PM. I call it C.S.I. 9/11. Here is a flyer: Original image We want a full examination of all the evidence by a new 9/11 Commission, in a World Court setting. The evidence warrants it. The victims demand it."



Grit1645	Oct 28 2008, 01:20 PM Post #3
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	SPreston Oct 28 2008, 09:49 AM Quote: The Pulverized Office Contents, The Pulverized Human Remains, and The Steel Outer Wall Units land up to 600 feet from the base of the Tower. Pressure was applied outward in all directions, at all levels. The 'Point of Origin' of this pressure wave is evident. Photographs and videos. The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE. A loyal WTC firefighter victim family member presents conclusive evidence that explosives blew 4-ton exterior wall sections 600 feet away from the North Tower to land upon the glass roof of the Winter Gardens building. Quote: Original image The roof damage to the Winter Gardens is 600 feet from the base of the tower. Original image The 4-Ton steel Outer Wall Units from the Sky Lobby level had 8 seconds to travel the 600 ft. These 4-Ton Units exited the North Tower at near 55 MPH. Original image Some force was strong enough to accelerate hundreds of 4-ton steel Outer Wall Units from 0 to over 50 MPH in 0.09 sec. and eject the material over 500 ft. out over Lower Manhattan. This brief force was present, pushing in all directions, for an average time period of- Approximately 0.09 sec. on each floor. Every floor. 110 floors. REMARKABLY This Same Force Pattern was present in The South Tower/Marriott The Same Force was present at The Same Floor Levels and with The Same Results. The same pressure wave evidence in both North and South towers. From the same floor levels, the same wall sections are blown the same distances. C.S.I. 9/11 Hmmm. His analysis seems a little too simplistic. Perhaps some of the AE Truth people will come to his aid.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 28 2008, 05:00 PM Post #4
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "Hmmm. His analysis seems a little too simplistic. Perhaps some of the AE Truth people will come to his aid." Grit, if you've got nothing to contribute, you should be posting over at JREF where they admire that kind of behavior. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Oct 28 2008, 05:26 PM Post #5
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Here is a full view and a cropped and zoomed view, showing how much explosive activity was occurring well below the top down collapse. MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 29 2008, 09:54 AM.
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Oct 28 2008, 06:38 PM Post #6
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 28 2008, 05:00 PM Grit1645 "Hmmm. His analysis seems a little too simplistic. Perhaps some of the AE Truth people will come to his aid." Grit, if you've got nothing to contribute, you should be posting over at JREF where they admire that kind of behavior. MM Another poster has pointed out the futility of "contributing" anything other than "agreement". BoneZ There's absolutely nothing you can say or do to convince any of us here, or the professionals in my sig, that those buildings didn't come down in a controlled demolition. You can either continue to look at the evidence that's been posted over and over again, or you can stay close-minded and agree to disagree and move on to another subject. C.S.I. 9/11's approach is far too simplistic, and not in keeping with what was actually seen. Beyond that, it's hard to even know where to start, and what would be the point, exactly?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


BoneZ	Oct 28 2008, 06:41 PM Post #7
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Grit1645 Oct 28 2008, 06:38 PM it's hard to even know where to start, and what would be the point, exactly? Then what's the point in even posting in this thread or even continuing on with this subject? Why are you here on this forum and what do you hope to gain? Edited by BoneZ, Oct 28 2008, 06:41 PM.
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


JackD	Oct 28 2008, 10:12 PM Post #8
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	SPreston Oct 28 2008, 09:49 AM Quote: The Pulverized Office Contents, The Pulverized Human Remains, and The Steel Outer Wall Units land up to 600 feet from the base of the Tower. Original image Pressure was applied outward in all directions, at all levels. The 'Point of Origin' of this pressure wave is evident. Photographs and videos. The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE. A loyal WTC firefighter victim family member presents conclusive evidence that explosives blew 4-ton exterior wall sections 600 feet away from the North Tower to land upon the glass roof of the Winter Gardens building. Quote: C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower. Quote: In memory of: Vincent Princiotta F.D.N.Y. Engine 16, Ladder 7 Killed on 9/11/01 Sal J. Princiotta F.D.N.Y. Engine 33, Ladder 9 Killed on 5/1/07 Quote: Original image The roof damage to the Winter Gardens is 600 feet from the base of the tower. Original image The 4-Ton steel Outer Wall Units from the Sky Lobby level had 8 seconds to travel the 600 ft. These 4-Ton Units exited the North Tower at near 55 MPH. Original image Some force was strong enough to accelerate hundreds of 4-ton steel Outer Wall Units from 0 to over 50 MPH in 0.09 sec. and eject the material over 500 ft. out over Lower Manhattan. This brief force was present, pushing in all directions, for an average time period of- Approximately 0.09 sec. on each floor. Every floor. 110 floors. REMARKABLY This Same Force Pattern was present in The South Tower/Marriott The Same Force was present at The Same Floor Levels and with The Same Results. The same pressure wave evidence in both North and South towers. From the same floor levels, the same wall sections are blown the same distances. C.S.I. 9/11 This is a nice post, coming from a surviving family member of 2 WTC victims -- one on 9/11, and a first responder who died 5 years later. Mr Princiotta's case about ejecting of 4 ton structural steel units is compelling. Without taking anything away, i think that the measurement of the SPEED of the ejection is hard to calculate, unless you had an intact unit from a specified floor (ie serial number of unit, matched to floor) a certain measured distance away, and then calculated back per standard math. A number of the steel frame units were broken up into smaller pieces, some stayed attached to others, so the kinetics & acceleration forces have to be calculated independently. Still, the argument holds a steel unit -- whater the size & shape -- ejected from the TOP of the tower closest to Winter Garden would have to achieve an exit velocity of 44+ mph to make it 600 feet. The lower down you go on the tower face, the FASTER the steel would have to be blown out in order to make the 600ft distance. offiical collapse adherents might say.. the collapse of a floor might cause a shearing or buckling of a unit or two, causing it "lay out" and fall horizontally at some speed (3 to 10mph at estimate) -- but that would not provide the lateral movement necessary to reach Winter Garden in 10 seconds or less. I'm at a loss to find a source of energy, other than explosive force (nature of explosives undetermined) which would propel steel weighing 400 to 8000lbs (each 8ft portion of the steel frame about 400 lbs).... to 600 feet away. Or explosive force necessary to EMBED steel horizontally into neighboring buildings.
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Grit1645	Oct 28 2008, 11:38 PM Post #9
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	BoneZ Oct 28 2008, 06:41 PM Grit1645 Oct 28 2008, 06:38 PM it's hard to even know where to start, and what would be the point, exactly? Then what's the point in even posting in this thread or even continuing on with this subject? Why are you here on this forum and what do you hope to gain? If you stood up in a meeting of a group of people and stated something, and no one got up and said they disagreed with you on that point, mightn't you think that they must all tacitly agree? As a structural engineer, my disagreement with certain points of the Truth Movement serves as a reminder that not everyone, by far, in the engineering/physics community agrees with your conclusions. There were, in 2006, some 256,000 WORKING civil engineers in the US (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), of which over 20,000 belong to the Structural Engineering Institute. AE Truth lists around 520 "architectural and engineering professionals" petition signers, of which only a small number are structural engineers. It would hardly be a stretch to say that less than 1% of the structural engineers and physicists in the US believe that WTC1, 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. I have seen no evidence that this 1% has access to any knowledge or superior brain power that allows them to see what the rest of us cannot.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


noeffects	Oct 29 2008, 03:24 AM Post #10
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	who cares (Grit)how many "civil engineers" agree or don't . this isn't a popularity contest . the majority of people on earth used to think the planet we live on was flat, doctors and dentists sponsored cigarettes. blood letting. ever think a majority of anything could be wrong? how many of these 20,000 strucual engineers are supported by gov. grants. how many have seen anything that goes against the fantasy fysics of the official story?
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Grit1645	Oct 29 2008, 05:47 AM Post #11
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	noeffects Oct 29 2008, 03:24 AM who cares (Grit)how many "civil engineers" agree or don't . this isn't a popularity contest . the majority of people on earth used to think the planet we live on was flat, doctors and dentists sponsored cigarettes. blood letting. ever think a majority of anything could be wrong? how many of these 20,000 structural engineers are supported by gov. grants. how many have seen anything that goes against the fantasy fysics of the official story? There is a level at which it goes beyond being a matter of "opinion". You have to be able to support your contention with equations and numbers using valid physics. I have yet to see that done to any reasonable and convincing extent by people claiming a controlled demolition. Vague statements about "violating conservation of angular momentum" and so forth mean nothing without equations and numbers backing them up. And using the wrong numbers/equations to get the answer you want only means that you cannot get the "answer" using the correct values. If you don't have the background to evaluate the physics, then you are picking based on which answer you WANT to believe.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 29 2008, 07:30 AM Post #12
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "If you stood up in a meeting of a group of people and stated something, and no one got up and said they disagreed with you on that point, mightn't you think that they must all tacitly agree? As a structural engineer, my disagreement with certain points of the Truth Movement serves as a reminder that not everyone, by far, in the engineering/physics community agrees with your conclusions." Therein lies the shallowness of your thinking Grit1645. You offer an analogy that doesn't fit, but no matter, it makes you feel better. A doctor won't comment on another doctor's diagnosis without reviewing the work that has been done to arrive at it. Similarly, the vast majority of industry professionals whom you feel so strongly support your position have never reviewed or commented publicly on the official NIST Reports that are the foundation of the 9/11 Official Story. You are simply content with what you've been told, and it could be argued that the basis for your belief is that you want to belief what you've been told. You choose to translate professional silence as support, without making any attempt to fit that belief into the reality of human behavior. Grit1645 "Vague statements about "violating conservation of angular momentum" and so forth mean nothing without equations and numbers backing them up. And using the wrong numbers/equations to get the answer you want only means that you cannot get the "answer" using the correct values. If you don't have the background to evaluate the physics, then you are picking based on which answer you WANT to believe." IF you have the right numbers for your equations, you should get valid results. IF you have to use exclusion, assumption and selective testing to create numbers for your equations, there is a problem accepting the validity of the results. What I see happening is the gross misuse of science through the use of valid equations inappropriately applied, and input with critical numbers that have not been proven to have sufficient validity. You can't keep waving the engineer's textbook bible in the air, when that is not what's being challenged. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


SPreston	Oct 29 2008, 10:20 AM Post #13
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	noeffects Oct 29 2008, 03:24 AM Grit1645 There were, in 2006, some 256,000 WORKING civil engineers in the US (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), of which over 20,000 belong to the Structural Engineering Institute. AE Truth lists around 520 "architectural and engineering professionals" petition signers, of which only a small number are structural engineers. It would hardly be a stretch to say that less than 1% of the structural engineers and physicists in the US believe that WTC1, 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. I have seen no evidence that this 1% has access to any knowledge or superior brain power that allows them to see what the rest of us cannot. who cares (Grit)how many "civil engineers" agree or don't . this isn't a popularity contest . the majority of people on earth used to think the planet we live on was flat, doctors and dentists sponsored cigarettes. blood letting. ever think a majority of anything could be wrong? how many of these 20,000 strucual engineers are supported by gov. grants. how many have seen anything that goes against the fantasy fysics of the official story? Yes indeed. Many if not most of those people would be concerned with government contracts, and their careers could be placed seriously in jeopardy if they stuck their necks out. Conversely there have not been tens of thousands of WORKING civil engineers coming out supporting the official story, and insisting others are mistaken in their respective fields and papers. Those "520 "architectural and engineering professionals" petition signers" must be pretty firm in their convictions to stick their necks a mile out and put their names and reputations to it. Some skeptics have claimed the measurements are way off. That Winter Garden is closer than WTC 7. Winter Garden is much further away from WTC1 on every diagram I have seen. Besides those measurements are the work of Josef Princiotta. He says 600 ft; I would say over 500 feet away from WTC1. His photo shows the 4 ton exterior wall sections stacked up on top of Winter Garden. Perhaps he is measuring to the furthest piece. His claim is both Towers were hurling 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet away in a 360 degree circle around each Tower. Both Towers experienced a top-down explosive demolition after the top floors were collapsed, and were vertical during the entire collapse at near free-fall speed. Neither Tower toppled over in any direction in any video. Therefore these same 4 ton exterior wall panels were also hurled at WTC7 from WTC1 and damaged that building, although there is strong evidence of explosives in WTC7 long before any Tower collapse. WTC2 was much too far away to damage WTC7. (over 800 feet) Quote: The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE. The pressure wave to hurl those 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet in all directions came from the massive central core section, which had to be destroyed to enable the near free-fall collapse time of both Towers. Whether demolition explosives in the core at each floor level or much larger devices equally spaced or in the sub-basement level remains to be determined.



Grit1645	Oct 29 2008, 10:31 AM Post #14
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 29 2008, 07:30 AM What I see happening is the gross misuse of science through the use of valid equations inappropriately applied, and input with critical numbers that have not been proven to have sufficient validity. MM Interestingly enough, that is similar to what I see as well, only from the opposite perspective. How much background do you have that you can evaluate whether there are "valid equations inappropriately applied" or not? If I have more background than you, why should I abandon my perspective in favor of yours? As I have stated, nothing I have read or seen from AE Truth has presented a convincing argument. (And I have read/seen lots of their stuff). It is not about wanting to believe the "official story" it is about using what I have learned to evaluate some other claim.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Grit1645	Oct 29 2008, 10:45 AM Post #15
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	SPreston Therefore these same 4 ton exterior wall panels were also hurled at WTC7 from WTC1 and damaged that building, although there is strong evidence of explosives in WTC7 long before any Tower collapse. WTC2 was much too far away to damage WTC7. (over 800 feet) If this is so, why didn't the collapse of WTC2 damage WTC1, which was only about 100 feet away, judging from your diagrams? Quote: The pressure wave to hurl those 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet in all directions came from the massive central core section, which had to be destroyed to enable the near free-fall collapse time of both Towers. Whether demolition explosives in the core at each floor level or much larger devices equally spaced or in the sub-basement level remains to be determined. How could explosives in the basement cause a top down collapse?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


JFK	Oct 29 2008, 11:07 AM Post #16
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	SPreston Oct 29 2008, 10:20 AM The pressure wave to hurl those 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet in all directions came from the massive central core section, which had to be destroyed to enable the near free-fall collapse time of both Towers. Whether demolition explosives in the core at each floor level or much larger devices equally spaced or in the sub-basement level remains to be determined. All that would be required to cause a total collapse would be to blow out a 10 foot or so section of the core immediately below each maintainance floor. That would in effect break the floor to core joints after stressing the perimeter columns above and causing a "harmonic disruptive wave" in those perimiter columns. That would also explain the "spire". Who exactly were the tennants in the 2 floors below each maintainance floor ?
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	Oct 29 2008, 11:20 AM Post #17
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/towers/north.stm
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


SPreston	Oct 29 2008, 11:22 AM Post #18
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	SPreston Therefore these same 4 ton exterior wall panels were also hurled at WTC7 from WTC1 and damaged that building, although there is strong evidence of explosives in WTC7 long before any Tower collapse. WTC2 was much too far away to damage WTC7. (over 800 feet) Grit1645 If this is so, why didn't the collapse of WTC2 damage WTC1, which was only about 100 feet away, judging from your diagrams? Don't know. Do you know for certain that WTC 1 was not damaged by WTC 2? That looks like some heavy pieces headed for WTC 1. I don't recall any closeup photos of the south face of WTC 1 after the top-down demolition of WTC 2. Do you have some? Besides this thread is primarily about WTC 1 when it was destroyed by demolition. Those exterior 4 ton wall sections resting on top of Winter Garden are from WTC 1 over 500 feet away. SPreston The pressure wave to hurl those 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet in all directions came from the massive central core section, which had to be destroyed to enable the near free-fall collapse time of both Towers. Whether demolition explosives in the core at each floor level or much larger devices equally spaced or in the sub-basement level remains to be determined. Grit1645 How could explosives in the basement cause a top down collapse? Don't know that either. I stated that how the pressure wave emanated from the core structure remains to be determined. Regardless, the 4 ton exterior wall sections are on top of the Winter Garden over 500 feet away and WTC 1 did not topple over towards Winter Garden. Something propelled those heavy pieces over there. And there is a much larger and much heavier exterior wall section piercing the WFC3 building.



JFK	Oct 29 2008, 11:55 AM Post #19
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Headspin Oct 29 2008, 11:20 AM http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/towers/north.stm Thank you Headspin, I have saved copies of both the north and south tower, however there seems to be information missing from those.... They only list one set of mechanical floors. Edit to add - I found this on Wikipedia ( I Know ) Quote: Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services (mechanical floors) Level B6/B5, Floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76 and 108/109, in four two-floor areas evenly spread up the building. All the remaining floors were free for open-plan offices. Each floor of the towers had 40,000 square feet (3,700 m2) of space for occupancy.[18] Each tower had 3.8 million square feet (350,000 m²) of office space. Altogether the entire complex of seven buildings had 11.2 million square feet (1.04 km²) of space. Edited by JFK, Oct 29 2008, 12:25 PM.
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Oct 29 2008, 12:49 PM Post #20
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	In WTC1, the mechanical floors were; 7-8, 41-42 and 75-76. I haven't been able to find a record of anyone occupying floors 66-74. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


SPreston	Oct 29 2008, 01:08 PM Post #21
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	JFK Oct 29 2008, 11:55 AM Headspin Oct 29 2008, 11:20 AM http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/towers/north.stm Thank you Headspin, I have saved copies of both the north and south tower, however there seems to be information missing from those.... They only list one set of mechanical floors. Edit to add - I found this on Wikipedia ( I Know ) Quote: Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services (mechanical floors) Level B6/B5, Floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76 and 108/109, in four two-floor areas evenly spread up the building. All the remaining floors were free for open-plan offices. Each floor of the towers had 40,000 square feet (3,700 m2) of space for occupancy.[18] Each tower had 3.8 million square feet (350,000 m²) of office space. Altogether the entire complex of seven buildings had 11.2 million square feet (1.04 km²) of space. Therefore there were apparently four 2-floor mechanical floors above ground level, two of which are visible in this photo. Mechanical floors 41/42 and floors 75/76 on WTC 1. Mechanical floors 8/9 are hidden behind the buildings and floors 108/109 are above the fire area. Quote: We have the following quote from Engineering News-Record, January 1, 1970. On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm Mechanical floor This is a view of one of the mechanical floors (they were the only floors for which the prefabricated perimeter wall units were not staggered). The mechanical floors where not supported by trusses but by solid steel beams. Composite action between these beams and the concrete slab was by welded shear studs. The concrete slab was apparently considerably thicker than that of your average floor and specially reinforced with steel beams (a stack of which are visible in the foreground of the photo?). Such floors were necessary to enable the towers to resist the significant lateral force of hurricane force winds. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm



BoneZ	Oct 29 2008, 03:13 PM Post #22
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	"Grit1645" As a structural engineer, my disagreement with certain points of the Truth Movement serves as a reminder that not everyone, by far, in the engineering/physics community agrees with your conclusions. Then as a structural engineer, shouldn't you be at Scholars or AE websites discussing these issues with your peers? "Grit1645" AE Truth lists around 520 "architectural and engineering professionals" petition signers, of which only a small number are structural engineers. It would hardly be a stretch to say that less than 1% of the structural engineers and physicists in the US believe that WTC1, 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. It would be a bit of a stretch. Just because there are those that have actually spoke out, doesn't mean that others don't agree. There are many reasons why some don't speak out. If you've been paying attention to AE911T, you would know that everytime Richard Gage gives his presentation to architectural and engineering firms, 80%-90% of the architects and engineers sign the petition and agree with Richards presentation. He is only one person getting the word out to as many as he can. "SPreston" The pressure wave to hurl those 4 ton exterior wall sections over 500 feet in all directions came from the massive central core section "SPreston" the 4 ton exterior wall sections are on top of the Winter Garden over 500 feet away and WTC 1 did not topple over towards Winter Garden. Something propelled those heavy pieces over there. You can clearly see at least two pressure waves on the left hand side of the tower in the following gif that I made. Notice that the pressure waves are as wide as the whole building:
Posts: 724 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


Miragememories	Oct 29 2008, 07:42 PM Post #23
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Miragememories Oct 29 2008, 07:30 AM "IF you have the right numbers for your equations, you should get valid results. IF you have to use exclusion, assumption and selective testing to create numbers for your equations, there is a problem accepting the validity of the results. What I see happening is the gross misuse of science through the use of valid equations inappropriately applied, and input with critical numbers that have not been proven to have sufficient validity. You can't keep waving the engineer's textbook bible in the air, when that is not what's being challenged." MM Grit1645 "Interestingly enough, that is similar to what I see as well, only from the opposite perspective. How much background do you have that you can evaluate whether there are "valid equations inappropriately applied" or not? If I have more background than you, why should I abandon my perspective in favor of yours? As I have stated, nothing I have read or seen from AE Truth has presented a convincing argument. (And I have read/seen lots of their stuff). It is not about wanting to believe the "official story" it is about using what I have learned to evaluate some other claim." Instead of challenging the validity of how the equations were applied, I prefer to question the validity of the data used, and the effect it had on NIST's pioneered computer models. Wrong data will make valid equations produce wrong results, plain and simple. The greatest misuse of equations armed with unreliable data is the collapse initiation itself. Bazant, Greening, the NIST, no one has been able to explain how the WTC Twin Towers managed to both, suffer complete floor failures occurring so fast and so synchronized that the whole upper sections were able to impact with a uniform D R O P ! Both damaged towers started their collapse as a topple towards the side weakened by the aircraft entries. But both topples were miraculously arrested, which was particularly odd given that the center of gravity for each upper section would be lightening the load on the core as the topple progressed. Somehow as each core's load was being reduced by the toppling upper section, some rapid core area event forced them to fail regardless. The logical engineer would suspect something other than fire and impact damage at this point. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Oct 29 2008, 11:28 PM Post #24
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 29 2008, 07:42 PM Bazant, Greening, the NIST, no one has been able to explain how the WTC Twin Towers managed to both, suffer complete floor failures occurring so fast and so synchronized that the whole upper sections were able to impact with a uniform D R O P ! Both damaged towers started their collapse as a topple towards the side weakened by the aircraft entries. But both topples were miraculously arrested, which was particularly odd given that the center of gravity for each upper section would be lightening the load on the core as the topple progressed. Somehow as each core's load was being reduced by the toppling upper section, some rapid core area event forced them to fail regardless. The logical engineer would suspect something other than fire and impact damage at this point. MM The way I see it, at no point could the tilting have been putting any of the core columns in tension because that would mean a lifting UP of one side. This would suggest that the core columns were failing on one side before the other (of the core itself) causing the top to tip. That would bend the columns on the back side of the core, then all bets are off. Columns are VERY sensitive to how the loading is applied (centered, eccentric, etc) and a bending AND compression AND eccentric loading would reduce the capacity of the columns considerably. And no matter WHERE the center of gravity went, the load on the core columns nearest to the center of gravity would INCREASE from the previous loading. So the core's load wasn't being reduced, or at least no more than half of the core sections. I can expound that if necessary.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


French St	Oct 30 2008, 08:29 AM Post #25
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	Below a video named "North Tower Exploding" from ae911truth. A clip of the North Tower shows abundant evidence of explosive demolition that is not adequately explained by the official narrative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c A rapid sequence of explosions, which destroys the building from top to bottom, is visible at the beginning of the collapse of the north tower.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2