Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Rogers said:
That's not the way I understand it. As far as I'm aware, the initial plan was to have antennae on both buildings, and the primary role of the hat truss was to provide a support for the antenna that spread the load between the core columns and the perimeter columns. However, even if you're right and the antenna on WTC1 was a later addition, it still makes sense to attach it to the hat truss rather than directly to the core. The stiffness of the building against wind stress was provided primarily by the perimeter tube, not the core columns - which were primarily there to support gravity loads - so attaching the antenna directly to the core would provide the minimum, not the maximum, resilience to wind loads.

In any case, the structure in the photograph taken during construction bears such a close and obvious similarity to the structure at the base of the antenna, in terms of spacing, angle and length of the main structural members, that it seems more than likely to me that it's the same structure. In which case, you've seen your answer: there was a massive structure of steel girders connecting the base of the antenna to the hat truss, and the antenna was braced by steel cables.



I don't know how they're fixed, but the geometry looks very similar - I'd say the outer cables are inclined at a similar angle to the cables bracing the WTC1 antenna.

Dave
Click to expand...
The antenna was added in 1978. The conical shaped top of the hat truss did not protrude through the flat roof of WTC1 so the antenna was not designed to mate with it. It would not make sense to attach the antenna solely to the hat truss anyway as it was not designed to have a massive 360 foot lever attached to it. This would cause distortion whenever the wind blew and interfere with or even prevent the hat truess from doing it's primary and vital work of tying the core columns and perimeter columns together at the top of the building and redistributing the various loads.

When the perimeter columns took the wind they transmitted the force into the much stiffer core which in turn transmitted the remaining force out to the opposite perimeter wall. So some compression of the lateral beams would mean that the core was the most inherently stable element in this equation. The logical choice to attach the antenna to. The only choice in my view.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The antenna was added in 1978. The conical shaped top of the hat truss did not protrude through the flat roof of WTC1 so the antenna was not designed to mate with it.
Click to expand...

What's your source for the assertion that the conical top of the WTC1 hat truss didn't protrude, and that the antenna was not designed to mate with it?

bill smith said:
It would not make sense to attach the antenna solely to the hat truss anyway as it was not designed to have a massive 360 foot lever attached to it.
Click to expand...

What's your source for the assertion that the hat truss wasn't designed to carry the antenna?

bill smith said:
When the perimeter columns took the wind they transmitted the force into the core which in turn transmitted the force out to the opposite perimeter wall. So some compression of the lateral beams would mean that the core was the most stable element in this equation. The logical choice to attach the antenna to. The only choice in my view.
Click to expand...

Since you have no structural engineering expertise, why do you feel that anyone else should consider your opinion as in any way compelling, given that opposing opinions as well reasoned have been offered?

Dave
 
Oh, by the way, Bill, just to give you my sources:

Wikipedia said:
Hat trusses (or "outrigger truss") located from the 107th floor to the top of the buildings were designed to support a tall communication antenna on top of each building.[30] Only 1 WTC (north tower) actually had an antenna fitted; it was added in 1978.[31] The truss system consisted of six trusses along the long axis of the core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed some load redistribution between the perimeter and core columns and supported the transmission tower.[32]
Click to expand...

The source for this is the NIST report on the WTC 1&2 collapses, NIST NCSTAR1 , page 10.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, by the way, Bill, just to give you my sources:





The source for this is the NIST report on the WTC 1&2 collapses, NIST NCSTAR1 , page 10.

Dave
Click to expand...

This photo and any other I have seen seem to indicate that the hat truss did not protrude through the roof.
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii214/Blogger-pics/09-11-2001/antennabase.jpg

Do I really need a source to say that you do not attach a massive vertical metal mast 30 storys tall and exposed to the open wind at one quarter mile elevation to a complex element critical to the buildings continued survival. This gigantic 'lever' would not do at all Dave. Maybe you want to tell me where my logic fails on this ?

I don't need to tell you at this juncture that I have a very jaundiced view of whatever NIST says in relation to the events of 9/11.
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Pondlife
Click to expand...

Richard is really beginning to gain in confidence isn't he ? He comes over really quite convincingly in this interview. Soon we will have a new enquiry that will establish the Truth which is all we have been asking nicely for all along. Let the chips fall where they may.
 
bill smith said:
Do I really need a source to say that you do not attach a massive vertical metal mast 30 storys tall and exposed to the open wind at one quarter mile elevation to a complex element critical to the buildings continued survival. This gigantic 'lever' would not do at all Dave. Maybe you want to tell me where my logic fails on this ?
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you have no logic. Just completely uniformed speculation. You know nothing about engineering or physics so your opinion means nothing.

I don't need to tell you at this juncture that I have a very jaundiced view of whatever NIST says in relation to the events of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is clear that you, who knows nothing about engineering, would rather just make up garbage than rely on actual evidence.
 
bill smith said:
Richard is really beginning to gain in confidence isn't he ? He comes over really quite convincingly in this interview.
Click to expand...

No he just looks crazy. Do you think dropping carboard boxes on each other proves that 9/11 was an inside job? This is a yes or no question that you seem to be ignoring.

Soon we will have a new enquiry that will establish the Truth which is all we have been asking nicely for all along. Let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? I hope you do. Only because you'll be severely disappointed when it never happens and the thought of that is funny to me.
 
bill smith said:
Do I really need a source to say that you do not attach a massive vertical metal mast 30 storys tall and exposed to the open wind at one quarter mile elevation to a complex element critical to the buildings continued survival. This gigantic 'lever' would not do at all Dave. Maybe you want to tell me where my logic fails on this ?
Click to expand...

Everywhere, more or less. Firstly, it's an argument from ignorance; you don't know how it could be done, therefore you think it couldn't. Secondly, the sources make it clear that the hat truss was designed to carry the antenna, therefore your argument based on the assumption that it was not designed to carry the antenna is specious. Thirdly, your entire argument is based on the bare assertion that the structure must have been incapable of handling the wind loads, which you haven't made a credible attempt to justify.

As for your photo, it clearly shows that there was a large area obscured by the outer skin of the antenna which matches exactly a very large structure - seen in the construction photo - which clearly did protrude from the roof. You are therefore arguing against your evidence, and citing your evidence in support. Sorry, but I believe my own lying eyes rather than you.

Dave
 
dtugg said:
No he just looks crazy. Do you think dropping carboard boxes on each other proves that 9/11 was an inside job? This is a yes or no question that you seem to be ignoring.



Do you really believe that? I hope you do. Only because you'll be severely disappointed when it never happens and the thought of that is funny to me.
Click to expand...

I love rattling your cage dtugg.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Everywhere, more or less. Firstly, it's an argument from ignorance; you don't know how it could be done, therefore you think it couldn't. Secondly, the sources make it clear that the hat truss was designed to carry the antenna, therefore your argument based on the assumption that it was not designed to carry the antenna is specious. Thirdly, your entire argument is based on the bare assertion that the structure must have been incapable of handling the wind loads, which you haven't made a credible attempt to justify.

As for your photo, it clearly shows that there was a large area obscured by the outer skin of the antenna which matches exactly a very large structure - seen in the construction photo - which clearly did protrude from the roof. You are therefore arguing against your evidence, and citing your evidence in support. Sorry, but I believe my own lying eyes rather than you.

Dave
Click to expand...

Based on what I have seen including the photo I just posted for you there is zero evidence that the hat truss protruded through the roof. Zero is zero.

The sensible thing to do would be to send the wind loads that the antenna received to the ground directly through the core columns instead of allowing them to act on the vital hat truss. I'm really surprised that a physicist does not get this.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I love rettling your cage dtugg.
Click to expand...

All you're doing is providing me with free entertainment. I couldn't invent a character like you if I tried, yet it seems like you're for real. Please continue.

Anyway, do you think that dropping cardboard boxes on each other proves that 9/11 was an inside job? I assume that you are avoiding the question because if you say no well then that forces you to admit that your hero Richard Gage is a first class idiot. And if you answer yes...well I'll keep that to myself.
 
bill smith said:
I've seen this before when somebody mounted the BBC 23-minutes-before video. There was such an outcry that Google got so embarrassed that they actually had spokesmen on the comments section posting aologies for why the counter was not counting the hits. That was a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

Mind of a child.
 
bill smith said:
This photo and any other I have seen seem to indicate that the hat truss did not protrude through the roof.
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii214/Blogger-pics/09-11-2001/antennabase.jpg

Do I really need a source to say that you do not attach a massive vertical metal mast 30 storys tall and exposed to the open wind at one quarter mile elevation to a complex element critical to the buildings continued survival. This gigantic 'lever' would not do at all Dave. Maybe you want to tell me where my logic fails on this ?

I don't need to tell you at this juncture that I have a very jaundiced view of whatever NIST says in relation to the events of 9/11.
Click to expand...

So for a simple fact that has no impact on the existence of any evil conspiracy, you believe NIST got it wrong?

Bill, there were no cables.

A cylindrical mast really isn't that much of a wind load and since my TV reception was screwed [*] until they got the antenna up, I was paying attention to the antenna construction at the time. My recollection is that the hat truss was designed to accept the antenna from the beginning.

I might get the NY Times article for the day the antenna was turned on and see what they say.

Speculating and asking questions is fine, but inventing a worldview for some simple fact like this and then forcefully defending it in the face of knowledgeable people and pictures (and doing no real research/googling for yourself) is a distraction from your learning stuff and a waste of time for everyone that tries to point these things out to you.

[*] For non-New Yorkers: prior to the WTC, the top of the Empire State Building was the preferred place for TV and FM. At the time, I lived in the "shadow" caused by the construction of the WTC towers. As they went up, my reception went down. There was no cable here in the 70s so us kids had to learn to live without decent TV for a few years.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Based on what I have seen including the photo I just posted for you there is zero evidence that the hat truss protruded through the roof. Zero is zero.
Click to expand...

Keep saying that. Someone who hasn't seen the pictures might believe you.

bill smith said:
The sensible thing to do would be to send the wind loads that the antenna received to the ground directly through the core columns instead of allowing them to act on the vital hat truss. I'm really surprised that a physicist does not get this.
Click to expand...

The sensible thing to do would be to send the wind loads to the part of the structure designed to handle them i.e. the perimeter columns. The hat truss was designed specifically to do this. I'm not surprised that you continue to pretend not to get this.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
The sensible thing to do would be to send the wind loads that the antenna received to the ground directly through the core columns instead of allowing them to act on the vital hat truss. I'm really surprised that a physicist does not get this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should offer your engineering consultancy services to Richard Gage's architecture company?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom