WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

Rodriguez? Oh, I think the fact that he was a struggling actor/magician who just happened to be part of 9/11 might be a reason to draw attention to yourself and get some free publicity. He also filed a RICO suit against GWB. All of this with no proof except for someones words.

How would he know that he heard the sound 'prior' to the jet hitting the building? Does he ever say in the rest of his testimoney that he 'heard' the jet, no, only that this happens before. Sounds like slight of hand to me and go figure, he is a street magician living in NY...

He wanted to be known as a hero and the last one saved and all these other dramatic things it is textbook that he wants attention. Nothing more. Whenever someone like that is pressed for evidence or corroboration it never surfaces. Sad in a way.

Maybe we should go take a look ar this building and see if there were any differences in material to the WTC.

Aon Center

reply to post by esdad71


He felt the plane hit, he didnt know it was a plane at the time.

First the bomb from below him, than the building shook.

As far as a hero...

Bush awarded him something (not important ) at the whitehouse, for saving

12 to 15 firemen

reply to post by Sean48


You are absolutely right about that! Now I do believe that if the WTC did not have light trusses holding the floors up, and had instead regular steel I-beams welded to the core and exterior columns, the WTCs may have remained standing longer, or not collapsed at all. But I am sure you are aware that steel trusses and fire do not mix. And firefighters also know this well. But I cannot imagine the extra weight imposed if they went that way!

reply to post by GenRadek


Here is another example of how the removal of just one floor causes the whole top to collapse through the path of "MOST resistance"



Another law of physics broken? Nope!

reply to post by GenRadek


I'm taking it that you missed the last few pages on the verinage technique?


I even posted that same video.

Also, to those who keep saying about this technique not being viable in the towers because we can't see the exterior collapse anywhere but the impact points.

Watch those videos again and see where the building begins to collapse. That's right, the weakened flooors they designated to fail.

Remember this also. The technique involves misaligning the interior columns of the structure. And not necessarily the same floors that are weakened. But they still collapse from the weakened floors.

Something to think about.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


I apologize if I overlooked your videos, I didnt recall seeing them like a video screen already up. but noted! I was reposting them for Anok who was complaining that the WTC shouldnt have collapsed the way they did because they fell through the path of "most resistance". I was just showing him again how these two instances showed how it works and how the buildings managed to collapse "through the path of most resistance".

Well another thing to notice in relation to the WTCs, where did we see the failures occur there? In the places of the most heat and fire damage. Seeing how the trusses were sagging, they were the mechanisms for the loss of structural failure. And lets not forget the exterior columns showed a noticable inward bowing minutes prior to collapse. This was the cause of the collapse. And yes the floors did end up pancaking on each other, because where else were they gonna go?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I was just showing him again how these two instances showed how it works and how the buildings managed to collapse "through the path of most resistance".

No worries.

Well another thing to notice in relation to the WTCs, where did we see the failures occur there? In the places of the most heat and fire damage.

That's right. In the case of the towers, they would be the weakened floors. Doesn't matter if they hit a certain floor or not. The plane damage and fire would do enough damage to weaken a floor. Agreed?

Seeing how the trusses were sagging, they were the mechanisms for the loss of structural failure.

Someone is going to have to prove this in a laboratory setting for me to believe this theory. Until then, it is just another theory. Less viable than the theory of the verinage technique I might add since this technique has been tested as successful.

And lets not forget the exterior columns showed a noticable inward bowing minutes prior to collapse.

Watch your video and mine again. They all exhibit this same behavior.

This was the cause of the collapse. And yes the floors did end up pancaking on each other, because where else were they gonna go?

I agree with what you are saying, but the historical reference to a pancake collapse doesn't really apply to the towers. It's more like a pile driver collapse. The first verinage technique in use. Whether from just plane damage and fire or not. The same principles apply.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by GenRadek


Sorry for taking so long to respond.

I watched your vid, in fact there were others there , with the same

procedure , so I watched more.

This would be good I imagine for concrete buildings .

No steel buildings were shown, Id be worried doing that procedure with

steel, if it didn't work, it would "roll over".

However , like always in the "net' i came across this gem,

First responders testimonies

reply to post by Nutter


Well I did watch both videos over and I did notice the exterior parts bending outward prior to collapse in both cases. Now I do know that in the actual performed demolitions, they used cranes in one to pull away the one side and in the other video they used the hydraulics to push them out.

In the WTC we instead see one whole side bending inwards toward the center of the tower. Now i do see what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) that this maybe a "reversed" verinage technique, used to pull "in" the exterior rather than out, but that would mean that somehow they placed the equipment in the area without a soul noticing and having them survive the fires. Once again I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions, its not my intention to insult.

I know I know, that this site I am posting is seen as "bad" in the eyes of the CT side, but still this shows a little bit more into the sagging of the trusses I mean and the exterior columns bending in prior to collapse:
Floor truss sag

Originally posted by GenRadek
Now i do see what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) that this maybe a "reversed" verinage technique, used to pull "in" the exterior rather than out,

Actually, I'm talking more along the lines of the hydraulics misaligning the core. Wouldn't this pull in one side of the exterior prior to collapse?

I know I know, that this site I am posting is seen as "bad" in the eyes of the CT side,

I also get it from both sides. I know I come off as coming from the other side, but truthfully, I'd be more than happy to prove the OS correct.

but still this shows a little bit more into the sagging of the trusses I mean and the exterior columns bending in prior to collapse:
Floor truss sag

I just wish someone would test this theory. If it occurs, like I said, I'd be more than happy to accept it.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by Nutter]

I never stated the entire building was heated, just the failure point. Reread if you want. Maybe even take an anger management course online. I think it is appropriate to mention the grand opening of the "now" worlds tallest building in Dubai today. One person stated it well ! New skyscraper stands almost 3000
' above financial turmoil. How ironic for Al-Jazira to report on the worlds tallest building, which is of course built on sand (there is 43m of bedrock). This has got to make Vegas glow with envy. There are architects somewhere scheming away for the next pie-in-the-sky fly your eye marvel to mans ego. At least these concrete and steel meccas are where they belong, in the desert !! And not that means anything but bldg.#7 was built on top of a Con. Ed. substation and there were fuel storage containers too!

reply to post by Sean48


Another religious studies professor? Ugh.

He seems to be making a point of speaking about the first responders' testimony not being used by the 9/11 Commission neglecting to mention that the Commission was not charged with an engineering investigation of the buildings.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


you got it half right.

He took ALL the reports of explosions, Weeded out all but the

Firemen,s testimony (they know better than most what a explosion is)

And then weeded out further any reference too, other than using exact

words , Explosion, planned demolition and so on.

That's what he based his theory on.

reply to post by Sean48


Okay, now he should go interview those members of the FDNY that will talk to him (without knocking him on his backside, a few of them are getting a bit testy being asked about the subject) to see if any of them believe there were actual explosives in any of the buildings.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


It sounds like you watched the vid.

He said he had 1200 pages of testimonies.

There were (he stated) 10 firemen who used the exact words ,

Pancaked down

160, if memory served

Expolsions , planned demolition

He went through all the testimonies available to him from that day.

reply to post by Sean48


Yes, I have copies of the interviews as well. And as I said, go back and ask those men and women if they think it was actually explosives or if they are using comparisions.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


if a fireman had used words like Booms , he discarded it

words like 'large bangs" he discarded it

He chose ONLY Firemen's testimonies because they , if anyone, would

know what a explosion was .

They had to use those words...

What more do you want him to do?

Set a explosion off and ask them if it sounded like that ?

reply to post by Sean48


Which brings us back to "explosion" does not mean explosives.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


It doesn't mean bottles of cleaner and electrical generators, either, and infinitely many more people reported actual bombs/secondary devices/explosives than ever mentioned exploding generators or bottles of janitors' cleaners.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

Which brings us back to "explosion" does not mean explosives.

Just curious there, swampy...does "secondary device" mean "secondary device" or is that just more truther crazy hearing?