The Progressive Collapse Challenge

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by kozmo
ON a final note, Building 7 was "Pulled." Know what that means? It was a controlled demolition. That's right! Of the 3 buildings that collapsed that day, building 7 was an admitted controlled demolition.

Even better, you're "one of those" that believe someone went inside WTC 7 that day and placed demolitions while there was a fire raging!
I'm not even gonna begin to explain how little sense that makes.

I know I've posted these before, but for anyone who is new to this topic . . .

www.firehouse.com...

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

www.firehouse.com...

I see him grab a guy from the 21 Battalion and this was the first assignment he was giving out, so I rushed right into the small circle of guys and I ended up getting in on the assignment. And what it was was four engines, three trucks to World Trade Center 7.

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Uh, that is a "press brake."

it is used to bend large sheets of metal in a fabrication shop.

Uh, it's a "1970 Pacific 40-ton Hydraulic Press" as per it's description on the site selling it. What it's purpose is doesn't mean jack-sh-t since all we know is that the there was a 50-ton Hydraulic Press in the WTC that surprised him when it was no longer there after the explosion in the basement.

Plus his job was to fabricate metal, that's what he was working on at the time of the bombing, while his job also had him maintaining ALL of the WTC complex, so theres a good chance he was using something much more grander in size than the smallest press you could find on Google images.

After all, he was in shock to see it missing. I've never said the model i pictured was THE model that went missing but it's damn obvious that a Hydraulic Press can come in all sorts of sizes and considering he was shocked to see it missing, i dare say the small one you site is NOT the one they had.

In otherwords, get off your high horse and stop acting like an expert when your only taking a stab in the dark anyway. Admit it, the press you pictured was never the one in the WTC and you only used that one for reactionary purposes to diminish the worth of the quotes supplied by someone that contradicts your 'official' line of thought, ie. Using disinfo tatics, number 8 in paticular.



Now give us an essay on all you know about the world of Hydraulic Press because i'm sure you have nothing better to do than hit up google, do some research and then come back as a self proclaimed expert.

Or, tell us exactly how you know the press you pictured was likely the same one that was in the WTC and PROVE IT, don't say, 'i know because i've been in many big buildings...blah blah', i want to see a reference, an image etc to the WTC Hydraulic Press because all we do have so far is from the person who does know what it looked like and he was shocked to see it missing.

The claim that the hydraulic press just disappeared is hard to swallow. It may have moved, or was thrown accross the room, but it didnt "disappear".

Regardless if it was a tiny press like HR's, or a huge press like the one you showed, for it to simply "disappear" would require a very large amount of explosives... Like, enough to swallow 3-4 floors like the first WTC bombings. A demolition charge would have little to no effect on a machine that big. So sure, show us bigger pictures of 40ton presses, it just goes against the whole "disappeared" theory.

People keep bringing up this 40ton press like its the holy grail of demolition proof.. its not. The machine weighs (I'm guessing here, but I'll look it up if you want proof) no more then 3000lbs.. a fireball explosion could possibly move it across the room. But it didn't simply go "POOF" without a rather LARGE size hole.

Edit Add:


[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I know I've posted these before, but for anyone who is new to this topic . . .

Nice find, and thanks for further proving my point.

What you're trying to prove is that it was already going to collapse, the firemen pulled out. And after this decision was made they sent a demolition team in, ignoring the risk of an iminent collapse and the fires that caused this risk. Then this team placed demolitions in under 2 hours for a perfect collapse ?

Reaching is an understatement don't you agree ?

Or are you suggesting it collapsed by itself ?

Originally posted by QuietSoul
But it didn't simply go "POOF" without a rather LARGE size hole.

No, according to the witness it was wrinkled up.
And I don't know about you but I don't think a fireball travelling for 70-80-90 stories is going to do this.

There's also the fact that there was an explosion in the basement before ANY plain hit the towers.

Plus the molten steel found weeks after the collapse ...

All clear signs of an explosion wich are not quickly solved with a fireball theory.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically, the challenge is to recreate a progressive collapse (the name given to the kinds of collapses unique to only WTC 1, 2, 7, and the Murrah Federal Building).

You can build a model using whatever you would like. Your objective is to meet the five requirements, which go from easiest to hardest, should they be possible at all by given explanations.

The Challenge:

THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE

The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.

All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.

Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.

The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.



CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.

This needs to be reproducible. That's the whole point here. If these kinds of collapses are really such imminent threats to buildings, they should certainly be easy to reproduce.

If you can submit unadultered video clips of each challenge, being met, then we'll consider the challenge (and thread) met. If you can do it, and submit to us how, so that we may reproduce your results, then you're at least giving us something to amuse ourselves with and try individually.

Good luck (and I would say you really will need it)!

Once again this challenge is ridiculous.

What exactly is the point of this challenge?

Progressive collapse is real, has been studied, and is a real problem for developers of skyscrapers.

If this challenge were real it would only require the first challenge, as that is all that's needed to prove progressive collapse.

How would we build, without computer modelling, a structure that can withstand 100mph wind?

Where would we test this ability? I don't have a wind tunnel in my apartment.

This challenge reminds me of Kent Hovinds great evolution challenge. While I could not find it on Hovind's site anymore, it is preserved on talkorigins.com.

www.talkorigins.org...

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.



* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

It is phrased in such a way that makes any challenge pointless, as only 4 and 5 have anything to do with evolution.

This progressive collapse challenge is very similar, as only the first one has anything to do with progresive collapse.

Here are some great pictures of progressive collapse, I post it again for emphasis.

www.implosionworld.com...

To see a top down progressive collapse look at the kingdome.

www.implosionworld.com...

As you can see, even though the kingdome was collapsed top-down there were still noticeable exposions throughout the building.

This looks nothing like the uncontrolled collapse of the WTC.

Here is what happened there, from my previously ignored PDF file of a study on progressive collapse.

www.ptc.psu.edu...


This


Plus this


Equals this



Why is this so hard to understand.

Progressive collapse is not just made up.

Please respond to my points. Explain why any of the challenges after the first are relevant to the existence of progressive collapse.

I have posted my evidence for progressive collapse, please post some evidence for controlled demolition that is scientific, and not your interpretation of the pictures.

As I have said before, even if progressive collapse were impossible (it isn't) you cannot prove a negative.

edit to shorten link at member's request.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What exactly is the point of this challenge?

To prove (or disprove) the theory that the WTC towers suffered a progressive collapse.

Again, your collapsing box only meets part 1.

Keep digging.

More press weights

The weight of HR's press is 398lbs
The weight of this 40ton press is 151lbs
The weight of this 40ton press is 6,000lbs
The weight of this 40ton press is 14,000lbs

So to use the argument that the 40ton press simply disappeared has no grounds. Without the exact type of press, press type, and further information, this whole argument is null.. quite spreading misinformation.

First the press disappeared, now its wrinkled up?

And I don't know about you but I don't think a fireball travelling for 70-80-90 stories is going to do this.

You obviously don't understand that the energy released in the elevator tubes from an ignited jet fuel fire has only one place to go, up or down. Kinda like if you were to leave your stove on for a day and light a cigarette.. the energy from the fire only has one place to go.. out.. and it blows your entire house up in the process. The same process applies to the elevator shaft... the fire pressure, inertia, or whatever the correct term has to go somewhere, and when it reaches an exit, it's going to go "Boom".

There's also the fact that there was an explosion in the basement before ANY plain hit the towers.

According to a janitor, in the basement, that has absolutly no idea if a plane struck the building 70 floors above him. For him to make this claim is ludicris.

The time this fireball explosion would take to reach the basement is a matter of seconds.



This has all been discussed before in the WTC Challenge Thread, I surely hope this isn't all going to be rehashed into yet another thread. It's quite apparent we (everyone) never agreed in the other thread.. to bring it all up here.. again.. has no use to the discussion at hand.

[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

Thank you bsbray for ignoring my whole post.

It's good to see that you are not even interested in debate.

I bring up valid points and you dismiss them out of hand.

Is it that you can't defend your challenge? Or is it that you have no interest in a real answer if it doesn't fit your definition of the truth?

Originally posted by QuietSoul
The claim that the hydraulic press just disappeared is hard to swallow. It may have moved, or was thrown accross the room, but it didnt "disappear".

Regardless if it was a tiny press like HR's, or a huge press like the one you showed, for it to simply "disappear" would require a very large amount of explosives... Like, enough to swallow 3-4 floors like the first WTC bombings. A demolition charge would have little to no effect on a machine that big. So sure, show us bigger pictures of 40ton presses, it just goes against the whole "disappeared" theory.

People keep bringing up this 40ton press like its the holy grail of demolition proof.. its not. The machine weighs (I'm guessing here, but I'll look it up if you want proof) no more then 3000lbs.. a fireball explosion could possibly move it across the room. But it didn't simply go "POOF" without a rather LARGE size hole.

I don't think it's the 'holy grail' at all, hell i don't even think ANY of the video or photographs are even in the ball park of 'holy grail' in proving government complicity as much as the financial, business and government lies, but fact is, Howard has claimed expertise, denied any other train of thought and squashed a witnesses quote by yet again telling us how he is right and we are wrong without any basis for truth. He's summerised his own story about the press and is trying to make it fact when it's nothing but folk-lore.

I'm not here to fight about what 'could' of happened, but when a witness makes a claim and it gets thrown out the window as irrelevant because it doesn't fit in with the official story, then it's worth bringing back up because it shows the true colours of 'some' of the people trying to sell the governments story.

I don't think it's overly important but it's a great way of exposing Howards techniques to get a greater field of vision for how he's presenting his arguement. A lot of people are influenced by authoritive speach and that's how Howard presents his views. In the case of the press, he was an instant expert and as far as he's concerned, his word is final. How many other aspect of 9/11 has that technique been used on people who haven't bothered to question his logic?

That's where it gets important. Not everything Howard says holds up, as much as he'd like you to believe. He has his tatics, he can deliver a convincing post but a lot of the times if you press his view point, you'll find holes which either get proven or else get put on a never ending logic loop and you'll also notice how some of the stuff which is said comes out of thin air, it just carries a tone of authority with it which can scare people off for fear of ridicule.

So in the case of the press. Howard has claimed a small insignificant press which voids the witnesses quote because it doesn't fit his story, fine but for others reading this, let it be known that Howard has supplied NO PROOF other than that 'he knows because he's been in many building work shops'. That alone is disinfo technique number 8. "Where's the proof?", as he would say.

You offered nothing worth debating. That is to say, nothing in your post was scientific enough to be proven or disproven with science, save what I have already responded to. None of it was really even unbiased logic. Just a bunch of ranting, like "this is ridiculous," "what's the point?", "this isn't made up," "why is this so hard to understand," etc. Like I said, nothing scientific to respond to.

All the scientific stuff you did post, you have already posted, and I have already responded to. You should remember it because it wasn't but like a day or so ago, and you could flip back a couple pages on this post if you'd like a recap. Maybe you just get off when I tell you over and over that you haven't met the challenge?

That box you keep showing...



...is nothing even similar to WTC 1, 2, or 7, and nor is its partial collapse. You might as well stop posting it because it has nothing to do with the 9/11 conspiracy, and as far as this post goes, it only meets part 1 of the challenge, which isn't very impressive.

I'm not going to keep responding to your every rant when that's all you have to offer. I hope you understand.

Originally posted by QuietSoul

According to a janitor, in the basement, that has absolutly no idea if a plane struck the building 70 floors above him. For him to make this claim is ludicris.

That's why he heard it hit 3 seconds later ..

He heard it 3 seconds later? How is he so sure he didnt here debris falling from the towers? Or secodary explosions from the jet fuel fires going up/down other elevator shafts?

This man's words also seems to be a one of the most profound use of taking one man's opinion, and claiming it as fact. When in fact, all it is, is one mans uneducated opinion on what he "heard". It could have been anything.

And what's the deal here.. did he time it? I'm pretty damn sure if "bombs" were going off around me, the last thing I would be concerned about is how long in between booms.



[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

Well, Bsbray very good, just dismiss my evidence, it must help you sleep at night.


All of your responses have been you picking and choosing points.

In your own words you have said that, you didn't understand the pdf file, and that you barely glanced at my links.

Please address the fundamental flaws in your challenge.

What do any of them, other than #1, have to do with proving the existence of progressive collapse?

That box I keep posting is very telling. Imagine it as the portion of the towers above the plane impact. It is perfectly clear, I'm sorry you seem unable or unwilling to see this.

So please stop picking and choosing and respond to my criticism of your "challenge".

What about it is scientific? The reproducible part?

I can't reproduce the michelson-morley experiments in my apartment, yet I trust their findings. I must be crazy.

What are you trying to prove with this ? If anything it shows that what happend at the WTC is abnormal behaviour.
Like the WTC the picture shows damage on one side, but unlike the WTC this tower fails to collapse totally.
And just like the WTC this tower has enough supporting columns to keep the biggest part standing, this was also the case at the WTC, an average of 5 of the 47 central columns had dissapeared due to the crash.

Just imagine 80 extra floors under your drawing and you have the WTC.


BSB, why don't you change it to just ONE challenge,

- Reproduce a progressive (and total) vertical collapse of a building with damage to the upper part.

Originally posted by Shroomery
- Reproduce a progressive (and total) vertical collapse of a building with damage to the upper part.

That's a good point: the damage was high up the building.

Also, LeftBehind, you'll notice from videos that it appeared as though the floors were falling right on top of each other and knocked each other down perfectly evenly and vertically (if you don't suspect explosives, that is). This is what gave birth to the Pancake Theory. This is something else that is completely unlike your images.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
In your own words you have said that, you didn't understand the pdf file, and that you barely glanced at my links.

I barely glanced at the demolition video site. I know it's possible to do a top-to-bottom collapse with demolition charges. What more do I need to see? A baseball stadium being demolished? Is that supposed to convince me of what happened to the Twin Towers?

I didn't say that I didn't understand the pdf file. I said I didn't understand how you could reproduce their tests from the info in the pdf alone. In other words, the tests are not reproducible as you presented them, which is extremely important in this thread.

What do any of them, other than #1, have to do with proving the existence of progressive collapse?

The other parts have to do with proving that the WTC towers suffered a progressive collapse. The WTC collapses comprise 3/4 of all progressive collapses that have ever occured. That is to say, 3 out of 4 progressive collapses (a 75% majority) happened just as is required by that challenge.

Coincidentally, we happen to be discussing the events of 9/11 (woah! bet you never realized that at all! ), and that's why this thread is here in the first place. This is all revolving around the Trade Center collapses, and likewise, so is the challenge.

That box I keep posting is very telling. Imagine it as the portion of the towers above the plane impact. It is perfectly clear, I'm sorry you seem unable or unwilling to see this.

I like to rely on a little more than simply my imagination.

Again, you're posting absolutely nothing scientific for me to respond to. Only cheap words. And you ask me why I do not respond point by point?

What about it is scientific? The reproducible part?

Yes.

Professional scientific tests are generally published so that they may be reproduced and confirmed. Didn't see that from NIST.

I can't reproduce the michelson-morley experiments in my apartment, yet I trust their findings. I must be crazy.

Fortunately, there's a program you can download called SAP2000, that NIST used in their simulations, that may help you out with this one.

Further, steel columns failing from heat is not exactly comparable in complexity to proving through what light travels (or does not travel, rather).

Btw - Shroomery, any progress with your tests?

The one thing I could never fathom here, and maybe this is easily answered, is why NIST would not disclose this information readily available to anyone that asked? I mean, we did pay for their research, why can't we just ring em up and demand a copy of their software, data, and numerical equations?

I just got done emailing NIST this.. I asked why they sugarcoated all their reports with explanations, and no data.. I mean, just skimming over their reports again, I see pages and pages of discussion.. but no data.

Wheres the data for the SAP2000 models? Where's the data output, what tests the ran, what results, what equations, what variables.. nothing is presented in their reports..

And my biggest question was if someone asked for this data, would they get it?

Here's an even better question.. is that data public domain? Could we file an FOIA petition for it?

I seriously doubt the answer will be yes.



[edit on 8/26/2005 by QuietSoul]

Originally posted by QuietSoul
He heard it 3 seconds later? How is he so sure he didnt here debris falling from the towers? Or secodary explosions from the jet fuel fires going up/down other elevator shafts?

This man's words also seems to be a one of the most profound use of taking one man's opinion, and claiming it as fact. When in fact, all it is, is one mans uneducated opinion on what he "heard". It could have been anything.

And what's the deal here.. did he time it? I'm pretty damn sure if "bombs" were going off around me, the last thing I would be concerned about is how long in between booms.
[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

No it could not, this man has been working there for 20 years, he knows what's up and down.
If he first hears an explosion below him, then the plane hitting above him.. you don't need to look for outrageous fireball theories.
I also suggest you listen to himself explaining the events, so you'll get a better idea of what happend. Plus, everytime he tries to tell his story it gets altered by the media...

www.prisonplanet.tv... (starts talking around 30min into the show)

Personally, i think bsbray's challenge is too easy; I'd be much tougher if it was mine, and yet his simplified challenge still can't be met. In my view the above model and its partial collapse bears about as much resemblance to the WTC towers' construction and collapse as Ker-Plunk!



Firstly, the model describes a 2D section completely isolated from the original 3D model, and thus bears no relevance to a 3D structure whatsoever. Basically it describes the collapse of a brick wall that has had some of the bottom bricks knocked out. The dynamics of a 3D structure are completely different to a 2D one. For example, if the lower portions missing as shown in the model were applied to just that one section of the 3D model, the upper sections may indeed hold in that case, as they are supported by the rest of the structure to which they are connected, like taking a bite out of an apple, the apple doesn't collapse in on itself. Compare these:







Secondly only the unsupported section of the building collapses. The rest of the structure stays neatly intact, which supports what we "conspiracy crackpots" have been asserting all along.

Thirdly, the model describes a structure that has its base removed/weakened, rather than a "bite-out" section near the top. The model does not show how floors below the collapse area also go into progressive collapse once the collapsing sections fall down on them, as is posited for the WTC towers by the U.S. government and supporters of the pancake theory. Even in Ker Plunk!, the marbles go into "global runaway collapse".

Fourthly, the model fails to show a simultaneous collapse of an entire "floor", again something which is integral to the waffle theory.

There are also many other problems with this particular model and with the reproducibility of the study itself as relevant to the challenge herein, and as described by bsbray11.

[edit on 2005-8-26 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Uh, that is a "press brake."

it is used to bend large sheets of metal in a fabrication shop.

Uh, it's a "1970 Pacific 40-ton Hydraulic Press" as per it's description on the site selling it. What it's purpose is doesn't mean jack-sh-t since all we know is that the there was a 50-ton Hydraulic Press in the WTC that surprised him when it was no longer there after the explosion in the basement.

You know, I don’t mean to be picky, but look at the listing again
www.surplusmachinetool.com...

brakes, press : (click colored links for pictures)
40 ton Pacific 40/8 hydraulic, 8' overall, 8' x 14 gauge capacity, 6-1/2' between housings, die rail, dual footswitches, micrometer limit switches, 6' punch & die, 230/460/3/60, wired 460 volt, 1970* (MN)

90 ton Verson 206-65 mechanical, 8' overall, 6'6" between housings, 8' x 10 gauge, die rail, Autogauge CNC 1000 24" back gauge, 440 volt, 1968, $5,500.00* (MN)

6' gooseneck punch (closeup) & 6' die (closeup)

this piece of machinery is clearly listed under the heading "Brakes, Press."

This particular press brake is made by a different company, but it is very similar to the 1970 Pacific model shown in the photo above.

Press Brakes are manually fed by an operator. The operator holds a metal workpiece between a punch and die and against a gauge to apply a bend or multiple bends to the metal workpiece. They are perfect for producing bent parts like cabinets and enclosures.
Press brakes can have one of several types of back gauges and depth stops. There can be manually placed and adjusted gauges, pins to engage holes in the workpiece and CNC (computer numerically controlled) programmable units to automatically adjust settings after each stroke.

here is a similar Pacific press brake.

There is a vast difference between the piece of equipment that I posted and that press brake that you posted.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Plus his job was to fabricate metal, that's what he was working on at the time of the bombing, while his job also had him maintaining ALL of the WTC complex, so theres a good chance he was using something much more grander in size than the smallest press you could find on Google images.

You don’t really know what a stationary engineer does, do you?

As to your claim: ”Plus his job was to fabricate metal, that's what he was working on at the time of the bombing.”

Let’s look at the article again, shall we?

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.

Pulling the heads off of chillers is a fairly routine maintenance procedure. Engineers use gantry cranes like this all the time to do this.


www.lkgoodwin.com...

(and BTW, the expression “2,500 ton” and "49,000 tons" in the chiller descriptions have NOTHING to do with the actual physical weight of the equipment. The term "ton" is a measure of the chilling capacity of the equipment, not its weight.)

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
After all, he was in shock to see it missing. I've never said the model i pictured was THE model that went missing but it's damn obvious that a Hydraulic Press can come in all sorts of sizes and considering he was shocked to see it missing, i dare say the small one you site is NOT the one they had.

"i dare say the small one you site is NOT the one they had"

You can’t claim that for a fact. You don’t even know what a stationary engineer does. How does that make you an expert on the type of equipment that they use?

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Or, tell us exactly how you know the press you pictured was likely the same one that was in the WTC and PROVE IT, don't say, 'i know because i've been in many big buildings...blah blah', i want to see a reference, an image etc to the WTC Hydraulic Press because all we do have so far is from the person who does know what it looked like and he was shocked to see it missing.

The fact is, I have been in the machine shops, boiler rooms and mechanical spaces of some very large high rises, I think that is more than you can say. I know what stationary engineers do, I deal with them on a daily basis. I have seen the types of equipment that they use and it generally includes a small press frame like the one that I posted. Maybe smaller, maybe bigger. BUT, this engineer was talking about a 40 ton press, so that is what I showed you, not a 20 ton press, not a 90 ton press. Even the larger versions of shop presses are not so heavy that you could not move them by hand if you had to.

I have seen these in use.

Thus, if a fuel air explosion is powerful enough to knock down partitions, blow out elevator doors and plate glass windows then it was powerful enough to knock down and bury that press under a pile of debris.

So therefore, any claim that there was a bomb in the basement, where the claim is based on the statements of that engineer regarding the hydraulic press, is very week and unsubstantiated.

It is up to YOU to provide proof that the hydraulic press would have been somehow able to withstand the force from the fuel air explosion.

Given my experience with this type of equipment and the violence of the fuel air explosion, I don't find the fact that the press "disapeared" all that remarkable. I doubt that he spent any time looking for it. He noticed that it was not in it's customary positon, and moved on.