First-hand Accounts of Underground Explosions In The North Tower

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

Mike Pecoraro had gotten up from bed at 4 a.m. to make his normal 2 hour commute from his Long Island home to the World Trade Center, where he worked as a Stationary Engineer on a roving crew that serviced all of the buildings at the com plex. The 36 year-old father of two stopped and bought breakfast on the way into One World Trade Center and changed into his work clothes. At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement, ate his breakfast and chatted with his co-workers who were also arriving for the normal 8:00 a.m. beginning of their shift. Mike's assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.

<SNIP>

Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line

<SNIP>

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. "There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

<SNIP>

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured. Realizing he had to get help, Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew. People were now coming down the same stairway from above the lobby and Arti and Mike had to stay where they were to direct people out of the stairway door and into the building's lobby. If they didn't, people descending could walk past the lobby door and unwittingly keep descending into the sublevels of the building.

<SNIP>

KEEP READING IT GETS BETTER

...my question would be WHY this hasn't been talked about (if, in fact, it hasn't yet).

comes to mind?

to get this story out?

;)

:eyes:
do something productive and let this crap die the death it deserves.

Don't have the links right now, but NYFD on the scene reported concussive explosions that to them sounded distinctly like bombs.

that happens in America happens just like it is reported in the media?

We must believe that it was "nothing there , let's move on" for...

JFK
MLK
RK
911
Oklahoma City and on and on.

"Let's move on," America always is totally innocent and people that question must move on.

Maybe if for once we did not move on and stuck with it and told the truth, there would not be brave souls that refuse to drink kool aid.

please people, lets try to retain some credibility here?

aeronautical engineer for 40 years and I've looked at every aspect of 9/11 very closely...I'm not against the idea of conspiracies because I know perfectly well they do exist, but this particular one is so damned stupid, it really doesn't deserve any consideration by rational people.
Here's just one of many obvious questions: If someone wanted to blow down the WTC with explosives, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD AIRPLANES BE NEEDED?

jeezusfuckingchrist...I give up...

IMHO airplanes were needed for distraction and ultimate blame.

I have a hard time believing that the WTC's ultra-clean and ultra-controlled collapse was *not* strongly aided and abetted by strategically placed explosives.

Buildings merely blowing up wouldn't shock anyone. Not after Oklahoma City, at least. Not after the first bombing. But airplanes slamming into a building on live TV - now that shit's gonna make an impression.

You are entitled to your opinion. Other people as well. So why can't you stay polite?

Of course there are reasons to use airplanes. The symbolic effect of the airplanes hitting and the towers collapsing was enourmous. Both are necessary for this Hollywood-like effect.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

peace

WHY THE FUCK THEY WOULD NEED AIRPLANES.

If you just used explosives to drop the WTC, eventually it would get back to Bush--no one else (except Osama, and there are a lot of targets in the United States that would have killed as many people, have been as symbolic, but would have been a HELL of a lot easier to hit--one of the Bay Bridges in San Francisco comes to mind) has a good reason to want it gone.

If you hit the buildings with airplanes first, then drop it with explosives, you can always blame the collapse on the airplanes.

That is the engineers union magazine, not a conspiracy site. No axe to grind there, nor any reason to question the eyewitness accounts.

why is it beyond the pale to offer first-hand accounts of the greatest national security disaster in American history?

Why is it beyond the pale to ask questions about an event that enabled such sweeping political changes in America?

Why are you so eager to sweep this all under the rug?

to be an explosive day :nuke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x25665

far as having been talked about. Much is in print on this subject on various 911 theme sites. The most comprehensive site providing scientific evidence on the 911 attack and aftermath is 911 physics.org but you can start you search at 911truth.org and follow the links if you like.

There's no accounts of underground explosions. In fact, if you read the whole article, it talks about the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts and blowing holes in the marble in the lobby and burning people at the lower levels.

Did I miss something? Is there more to the article than what's at the link? Is there someplace where these engineers claim they think there were bombs planted in the lower levels? All I see from this article are a bunch of building engineers pretty much confirming the official story. If there's more, show it, but this article doesn't talk about underground explosions, just about the effects of the crashes.

paint a picture of destruction in the subbasement that appears to be caused by something more significant than an explosion on the 94 floor. Please note the excerpts in the narrative posted. How does one explain what they saw, could liquid fuel have caused the displacement of 50 ton pieces of equipment and loss of concrete walls in the basement? Maybe but please explain how? if people were burned near the lobby OK, if smoke was in the lobby OK. But that's much different than whole sale destruction which was reported in the basement.

a "50 ton press" doesn't weigh 50 tons, it weighs much much less, it is a machine that has the force to press things with a FORCE of 50 tons. it only weighs several tons, about the weight of a large truck. that's assuming a hydraulic press. something as simple as a 50 ton arbor press would only weigh a a couple of hundred pounds and sit on a benchtop. it depends on how you interpet it, but there was no 50 ton piece of equipment vaporised.

just clarifying that for you, i make no arguement one way or the other in regards to the rest of this.

Deeper in the article there's a reference to jet fuel in the elevator shafts. Also, the buildings didn't start their collapse at the base, the collapse started in the mid level. So you're stretching things like taffy here.

that you actually believe that the towers started to collapse at the point of impact of the planes. C'mon. Just because there are many different videos of the event, from different angles, all showing that that is exactly what happened? How gullible can you be?

That won't hold up compared to this quote from the article: "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.

If Mike is convinced, so am I. That's iron-clad. A veritable slam-dunk. Don't even attempt to refute that - it can't be done.

Why can't you just accept the truth? Remote controlled military planes, shooting missiles just before impact, triggered tactical nuclear bombs in the basement after a random length of time, which the media covered up by showing "live" footage of a model of the WTC collapsing given to them by the Mossad, who in a joint covert operation with FEMA - KILLED ALL THE EYEWITNESSES? Could it be any more obvious?

:) Make7

takes place to explain many of the discrepancies with the governments story of 911. It's to fantastic to believe, even more fantastic than the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 yes and even 7. So I tend to go with the less fantastic version no matter how improbable it may be for others to accept.

Put the WCT collapse aside for now, how could these caves dwellers take four planes and fly them around for a few hours then point them at building without one challenge from our well trained and well equipped defense force. Washington must be the most protected place on earth. We have three air force facilities in the general area and we could not intercept one plane before it completed the "mission" Bullshit!!

If you can't believe one part of the story (Cover up) you can't swallow any of it. We need an independent commission to weight all the evidence and make an informed decision, then I'll stop posting 911 alternate scenarios

There was chaos in the air that day. The first plane hit, no one would have expected them to do that. What was the time frame for the remaining planes? Until the second plane hit I would think no one really realized how organized this was. Then the other targets were in another city. And shooting down a civilian airplane while there's a chaotic scramble by the FAA to figure out what's going on... sorry, I don't believe they were ready to just start shooting down any apparent threat. There are reports of a military pilot demanding to know the source of the order he was given (I heard it came from Cheney) and whether it was legal. There was chaos, they were unprepared, and shooting down civilian planes would have required either a cavalier move or preconsideration of the option, which the time frame didn't allow.

moment by moment account of the events that day. After your review let me know if you think there was chaos that day or not.

That's the big lie that we've been fed by the administration and the media.

We -- general Americans -- had no idea terrorists were considering using commercial airliners as weapons. Those in the military... those in the highest levels of our government... not only suspected, they had prepared for it by running simulations and even a model-scale demonstration of it using the Pentagon. There was a scare earlier in the year when Bush visited a conference overseas -- that is, the word was that airliners would be used to crash the area where Bush stayed. THEY KNEW THIS WAS A POSSIBILITY!

The rule about shooting down a commercial airliner is on the books. If no one had ever considered this to be a threat, why would that law be on the books? There is only one person who can give the military that particular shoot-down order: The Commander in Chief. According to what I've read in the 911 Commission report, he didn't provide the military that order until late in the morning. There is still uncertainty as to who told Cheney to give the order earlier in the day (but still not early enough to prevent the crashes in Manhattan and at the Pentagon).

I don't know if I believe all the conspiracy theories out there about 9-11. I do know that I have questions that have never been given a legitimate answer.

site by creating a no fly zone to prevent a terrorist attack by air. This is documented and was broadcast over of all places the major networks.

from the highest levels of the national security state.

..snip..

For me, the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in, and management of, the attacks was found in a number of undisputed, yet virtually unaddressed wargames that I will show were being conducted, coordinated and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September 11th. The names of those wargames are known to include: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod II. All have been reported on by major press organizations relying on undisputed quotes from participating military personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All, except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II, had to do with hijacked airliners inside the continental United States, specifically within the Northeast Air Defense Sector where all four 9/11 hijackings occurred.

According to a clear record, some of these exercises involved commercial airline hijackings. In some cases, false blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during (at least) the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because, with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance, had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast U.S. – just before 9/11 – into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were "live-fly" exercises where actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control – were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. The fact that these exercises had never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press, or publicly by Congress, or at least publicly in any detail by the so-called independent 9/11 Commission, made me think that they might be the holy grail of 9/11.

That's exactly what they turned out to be. Only one wargame exercise, Vigilant Guardian, was mentioned in a footnote to the Kean Commission report and then it was deliberately mislabeled as an exercise intended to intercept Russian bombers instead of a hijack exercise in the northeast sector. Even then, a deliberate lie was told to the American people as NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart testified to the Commission that the exercise actually expedited US air force response during the attacks.

When Michael Kane, a brilliant young New York activist and budding investigative reporter, approached General Eberhart on an FTW assignment at the conclusion of the Commission's last public hearing and asked for information on the other exercises, Eberhart's only response was, "No comment."

And an additional nonmilitary biowarfare exercise called Tripod II, being "set up" in Manhattan on September 11th was under the direct coordination of FEMA and – by White House directive – the immediate control of the Vice President. The setup for that exercise conveniently placed a fully staffed FEMA, New York City and Department of Justice command post on Manhattan's Pier 29 in time for it to be conveniently used as the command post after the Twin Towers had collapsed.

There are many, many areas where the official account and the findings of the Kean Commission are contradicted by hard evidence, official records, mainstream news investigations and even sworn testimony. Both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times have noted some of the lesser, but no less glaring, inconsistencies. In my book I will provide you with many more.

In my book I will make several key points:

1. I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command, control and communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC, or the White House Situation Room. To accomplish that end he relied on a redundant and superior communications system maintained by the US Secret Service in or near the presidential Emergency Operations Center – the bunker to which he and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice were reportedly "rushed" after flight 175 struck the WTC's south tower. I will demonstrate that the Secret Service possessed radar screens which gave them, and the Vice President, whose side they never left, with real-time information as good as or better than that available to the Pentagon.

2. I will demonstrate that, in what are called national special security events, the US Secret Service is the supreme US agency for operational control with complete authority over the military and all civilian agencies.

3. I will establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills on that day.

4. I will also demonstrate that the Tripod II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in number 3 above.

/snip/

From Michael Ruppert's address to the San Francisco Common Wealth Club, August 30, 2004:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/CWspeech.doc

Those "wargames" are like a boulder that forces me to be a firm LIHOPer and a tentative MIHOPer.

When you are playing for such high stakes--global military dominance and the wealth of nations--at least 15 TRILLION dollars of oil and natural gas reserves now in the hands of Wall Street--you don't just 'allow' things to happen. THEY MANUFACTURE REALITY RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES. They've even said so.

Ron Suskind quoting an unnamed White House source (most likely Karl Rove) in a 10.17.04 New York Times Sunday Magazine article:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

Some little guy at the Pentagon thinks up all sorts of scenarios and invents predetermined responses to each.

I don't know if they had a predetermined response to "jetliner runs into New York's tallest building" but they definitely had one for "jetliner deviates from filed flight plan"--send an F-16 up to look at it, have the F-16 pilot report what he sees and go from there.

That didn't happen.

"Put the WTC collapse aside for now"??? Wasn't that subject of your first post?

There are many questions that still need answers about that day. The events leading up to it, and the events following it. Too many questions. But to spend time on theories that can so easily be shot down is a waste of time and effort.

I agree that the air defenses that day need to be investigated thoroughly. They failed. Was it incompetence? Was it deliberate? I don't know. I don't have enough information.

I would also like to see an independent commission. I want answers too. But I think that if there were explosives in the basement of the WTC, the collapse would probably not have so obviously started where the planes impacted the buildings.

Please post all you want, just don't be surprised if someone shoots down a theory just because it isn't supported by the available evidence. Just go look at some of the theories in the 911 forum. Every theory does not merit an in-depth investigation. (i.e. tactical nukes in the basement of the WTC.)

If there is a conspiracy everywhere I look, I will never see the truth.

-Make7

they wrote a book. its called the 9-11 commission report. Read it. Its incredibly non-partisan, well written, and well backed up with millions of hours of research.

http://911digitalarchive.org/images/details/2024

but no mention of explosions in the basement

harmonics? vibration ratios? bedrock loads?
all the things that could explain this?

This is a bizzare event. It placed extreme stresses on structural items all the way down to the schist where the fucking things were bolted down. NO ONE knows what an explosion and fire with the transfer of that much speed and mass up high would do to 1/4mile long steel beams. Give me a fuckin break.

Furthermore, how do we know he knows an explosion from a collapse? I suppose he was in the Army Special Forces?

http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

Tons of stuff on both links above.

Two years ago someone told me what people are saying here (i.e. LIHOP or MIHOP) and I thought that person was absolutely crazy. I put it out of my mind until I starting looking into it for myself after the election. I was shocked and scared, at the thought that it could possibly be true. The links have lots of info.

no, I was one of the first believers of that....

but, explosives in the basement?

and this "expert" comes clean 3 years later?

sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

LIHOP or MIHOP is certainly the most likely proximal cause of the disaster, IMHO.

"Surprisingly, the World Trade Center towers were actually engineered to withstand the impact of a airliner collision." - http://www.engineering.com

hmmm....

Quote: "Surprisingly, the World Trade Center towers were actually engineered to withstand the impact of a airliner collision." - engineering.com

They did withstand the impact. Or did I miss the video where the towers fell down right after the impact of the planes?

But there's more - the article continues....

Quote: "The most likely cause of the complete failure of the towers was the enormous heat generated by the ignited jet fuel (the reinforced steel core would likely have reached temperatures of 800°C or more). The resultant explosion and extremely intense fire would have substantially decreased the tower's ability to maintain it's structural integrity. The collapse of the upper floors and the inability of the lower floors to bear the load resulted in the catastrophic failure of both towers." - engineering.com

Seems like they're saying the cause of the collapse was not just from the impact of the planes. Hmmm....

-Make7

if the core was super heated how did the fire fighters make it above the floors that were hit?

The core was not the point of failure, it was the perimeter columns and the composite floor slab/trusses failing that caused the collapse.

The force of the explosion in the basement literally shot them, like human cannonballs, above the floors that were on fire.

:) Make7

on airliners that moved 300mph slower, too.

That dog don't hunt, dude.

yeah, that explains it...

well what happened to wtc7, Einstein?
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

to the 9/11 forum.

"It will make DU look bad".

Art Bell where art thou...

I worked in the WTC and I will tell you that the place was locked up tighter than Fort Knox. I'm not kidding. You couldn't even get lunch delivered without going downstairs to get it and this was in early 2001.

I was a Facilities Director and had to have a lot of items delivered to our offices when we moved into the building. It was a -nightmare- from my end of things.

Anyway, just so you know, it would have been -extremely- difficult, if not impossible, to place bombs anywhere in the building.

They also had dogs that patrolled.

Assuming, purely hypothetically, that you had been recruited by "the terrorists" (whoever that might be), while working as a Facilities Director.

Would it not have been possible for you to place an order with a company for, say, elevator maintenance? This company -- posing as a elevator company -- would place the bombs while checking or repairing the elevators. Only you and perhaps one or two of your must trusted employees would know of the stuff.

You know
1) there will be a huge amount of money waiting for you in a Cayman Islands bank account (to be spent later),
2) if you talk, nobody will believe you, or you or your wife or your children could have a car accident.

I worked for a private corp that rented space in the WTC. I could never have ordered anything for the building.

The people that worked for the building, were screened up down and sideways. They were government employees who worked for the Port Authority of NY/NJ.

that means the government employees had to be recruited for my scenario.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing, but I think it would have been very difficult.

:)

or *ahem* Dick Cheney.

I don't subscribe the "US Government Plot" scenario.

I know Bush is evil, but I'm not sure he's that evil or that Guiliani would even be able to look at him, if he had an inkling about it.

I never liked Guiliani, but I do not believe he is "evil", like Bush.

Also, the NYPD and NYFD are "incredibly smart". They would have figured it out, IMHO.

:)

why would you expect anything different today?

besides, wtc7 was obviously a CD...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

there were no bombs for christ's sake! Clearly the sites discusses the towers being fatally damaged by the aircraft, not bombs.

I know one of the people quoted in this article and he would think yout tinfoil conspiracy theories are full of crap.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

so obviously there were some bombs...

Because that is just as likely.

What does that video show? It shows the building falling down, it down not show demolition or explosions anywhere.

that video shows a steel building falling in it's own footprint due to CD.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

it does not show a reason for the fall.

BTW, nothing exploded in WTC 7 other than the fuel oil tanks that contributed to massive fires.

unless you can provide another instance where such an event occurred in history?



that old, steel reinforced building survived much greater temperatures and it didn't fall in it's own foot print, only partially collapsed... a dirty collapse unlike the signature clean collapse of CD.

You are trying to compare the structure of a heavy masonry/heavy steel structure to a lightweight modern curtainwall skyscraper. Apples and oranges. Totally different loads and dynamic forces.

The Hiroshima City Hall was destroyed primarily by blast, not fire.

http://web-japan.org/atlas/historical/his17.html

"The Atomic Bomb Dome is a skeletal domed building in Hiroshima City which still stands to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb, dropped for the first time in history, exploded some 580 meters (1,903 feet) above Hiroshima City. The hypocenter was only about 160 meters (525 feet) southeast of this domed building. However, because the force of the blast came from almost directly above, part of the walls of the building and the steel frames of the dome on top survived and remained standing in the center of the burnt-out city area."

The central core and perimeter wall have been marked in red (the inner rectangle bounds the central core and the outer rectangle bounds the perimeter wall).

not ONLY a "a lightweight modern curtainwall" and CONCRETE.

fyi: the primitive steel used in the peace dome was one of the very first in japanese history.

First, we were talking about WTC7 not WTC 1 and 2 which have completely different structural systems. WTC 1 and 2 had comapratively lightwight and unique structural system necessary to build towers that tall and resist the wind forces, without a field of columns filling a typical floor plan:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

Here are your "massive" floor trusses" (actually pretty skimpy bar joists)


WTC7 was a more typical modern steel frame curtainwall clad building. The major difference with WTC7 and other typical office buildings was the series of transfer beams at the lower floors providing a column free span over the Con Edison substation. This was the building's vulnerable point as loss of a transfer beam in the fires likely caused an entire row of columns to become unsupported with no capability for load redistribution. That's what brough the building down so quickly.

The Hiroshima Building was a mix of heavy masonry, heavy over engineered steel and heavy reinforced concrete.

well your the one who said 'skyscraper' AND the steel used in the peace dome was very INFERIOR to the strength of modern high grade steel and rod-thin, nothing like what is used in modern 'skyscrapers', hello...

but don't let FACTS get in the way of your BELIEFS

The truss theory is the absurd belief that the only support (between the central core and the perimeter wall of the World Trade Center) for the concrete floor slabs, was lightweight trusses. It was invented to explain away what were obviously demolitions and has become the "official" dogma. The central core, perimeter wall and the mythical trusses are all introduced in the article: The World Trade Center Demolition. There you will find out their dimensions, their numbers and their supposed usage. The following illustration describes one of the mythical trusses.



more...
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=35246

psst... pass the word ;->

The trusses were not mythical. I posted a picture of one above.

The lightweight bar joists were bonded with the steel floor decking and the concrete topping when the floor slabs were poured. Steel and concrete are used for light weight floor consturction because of their complementary structural properties. Concrete is very strong in compression but has almost no tensile strength, hence, they embed steel reinforcing within floor slaps, or in this case, used a composite type of construction to provide a lightweight rigid diaphram at each floor which braced the perimeter tube columns back to the core of the towers. This provided wind bracing and provided stiffening to the perimeter tube columns.

The trusses failed from primarily from impact and in a secondary way from fire. The fire aggravated the collapse as the trusses distorted causing truss failure, either collapsing outright, or from the perimeter anchor clips failing, causing subsequent floor collapse in the immediate area. When the floors collapsed there was nothing left to brace the perimeter columns at this point from bending forces.

Even a 3rd grader can understood this science experiment. Get a long skinny stick and stand it up on it's end. Put one hand at the top and one in the middle, then push down with your hand. The hand in the middle is providing the same rigidity that the floor slabs provided to the perimeter columns. If you take that hand away the stick will bend. Translate that to a 110 story building.


Sorry, but that Imdymdia description of the collapse is full of shit.

there is no steel building in history that fell in it's own footprint due to fire and the MASSIVE core was built to withstand vertical forces up to 3x it's load and firemen were able to ascend above the floors that were struck which would be impossible of the core was super heated by fire.

more than 1/2 of new york thinks the gov was in on it so it's not a wild idea known only to the fringe.

You would in fact see that when WTC1 collapsed parts of the core did stay standing momentarily while the rest of the perimeter columns and floor slabs pancaked down. The core was designed for gravity loads, but the rest of the structure was unstable fater damage from fire and impact. Minutes before the South Tower collapse trapped civilians were callign 911 to report that the floors were collapsing.

No firemen went above the impact areas. By 10am firemen had only reached the 54th floor in the North tower. At the same time in the South Tower firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby and reported heavy damage. In 1993 it took 4 hours for firemen to reach the 80th floor. Most who died were trapped in the areas above the impact floors of WTC1, unable to escape through the heavily damaged core.



Maybe 1/2 of 1% thinks the government was in on it. You are part of the kook fringe.

said that, how do you explain that the WTC towers 1 and 7 and the WTC building 7 are the only know high rise structures to have collapsed do the "fire". The only three steel building in the world ever to have failed.

How do you explain that weeks after the collapse of WTC1 and 2 during excavation activities there were hot spots found at the building foundations where eye witness reports stated the steel foundation beans were deformed and molten. These beams apparently melted 100 floors below the impact, where, there was no "witnessed" fire.

How to you explain the near vertical collapse of WTC 7, look at the video, its perfect. I have witnessed and seen on video numerous controlled demolitions and this one looks markedly like all the others. And what raging fire, where does any account state where was a raging fire in WTC 7, a fire yes but raging, don't think so, and why didn't the fire department attempt to put out the existing fire that was active for many hours prior to the failure. I'm not saying conventional explosives caused the building to fail but something other than a plane hitting the 94 floor aided in the demolition.

It's just to queer. I'm not an expert, but it's just to fantastic a tail that a bunch of cave dwellers were able to trump the entire US defense system. You have to question the plausibility of that and if you do, you have to question everything else, everything, including the possibility that remote controlled airplanes were used to commit this dastardly deed.

Do you really, really believe the governments version of what happened?

how do you explain that the WTC towers 1 and 7 and the WTC building 7 are the only know high rise structures to have collapsed do the "fire". The only three steel building in the world ever to have failed.


WTC1 and 2 were severely damage by the impact which caused most of the damage. The fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were more or less instantaneous in open areas up to an acre in size fueled by jet fuel. There have been no fires or impacts that large ever on buildings of this size. I posted above re: WTC7 and it's lack of structural redundancy. The fires at WTC7 burned far longer than fires in other hi rise steel building fires and were spread over far more floors.

How do you explain that weeks after the collapse of WTC1 and 2 during excavation activities there were hot spots found at the building foundations where eye witness reports stated the steel foundation beans were deformed and molten. These beams apparently melted 100 floors below the impact, where, there was no "witnessed" fire.

I don't doubt that the towers were hit with passenger aircraft. Those people are dead, they were not remote control aircraft.


Ever hear of coal mine fires buring for 20 years? The entire site below the surface wreckage was smoldering for months. The fire was not out for weeks.It's one of the reasons many bodies were not found, they were cremated after the building collapsed.

How to you explain the near vertical collapse of WTC 7, look at the video, its perfect. I have witnessed and seen on video numerous controlled demolitions and this one looks markedly like all the others.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

And what raging fire, where does any account state where was a raging fire in WTC 7, a fire yes but raging, don't think so, and why didn't the fire department attempt to put out the existing fire that was active for many hours prior to the failure.

Photos clearly document the fires on multiple floors. After losing so many people in WTC 1 and 2 they decided not to risk any more lives and pulled their fire teams out. you can bet that the insurance companies would not have paid out insurance for WTC7 if it was intentionally demolished. The
Times interviewed a fire official who said that, at one point, every window
on the south face of 7 WTC presented flames. That would be a whole lot of
windows, figuring the south face was maybe 200 feet wide by 47 stories
tall. Several witnesses said that the building looked weird while it
burned, that the horizontal rows of windows were sagging near the
center. Sagging trusses?

At some point the fire department decided that the 7 WTC fire was too
dangerous to continue fighting. The building had long since been
evacuated. It took about 8 hours for 7 WTC to collapse.

.... and well said.

Remember also that structures that can not dampen motion will collapse.

The Trade Center was unique not only in it's floor truss designed in lieu of typical redundant columnization, it also had a unique key framimng element atop, a one of a kind roof truss framing system that linked and tied the outer tube steel columned walls to the inner I-Beam core. This roof truss system was the key framing element for dampening wind and motion. Belly bands of conventional steel framing at the motor room levels were dampening aids to that roof truss.

Well done Snivi Yllom!

Nevertheless, I could never have imagined that so many would believe so much. Incredible.

an explosion (when he was in the stirwell.)

and he also said when he got to the floor of the crash the whole floor was NOT on fire. that a good portion of it was ok.