9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your paper is crap. You and religion teacher wrote a paper using a simplistic crappy model that in no way reflects reality. The data does not reflect your model for a host of bad and poorly chosen assumptions and then you cry foul for anyone who says otherwise.

It's a statement of delusional paranoia.

Fix the model. Learn from the helpful criticism that you have received from all over the web where you have peddled this inane junk. Fix it and maybe you could even publish in a real journal with real peer review.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another point to drag up, which might not be a real point, but from every image or plan I've seen of the structure, I can't help but note the lack of Cross Bracing's

I noticed there are some in the corners of the inner core, however the overall structure is missing them to my knowledge. I would guess this was originally done because to place cross bracing's in would of increased the cost, along with with overall weight of the building. So to keep it cheap and light they would of been left out.

I could of course be wrong, however the translation of force over structure without cross bracing's is disastrous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
I don't know what you mean by this "we know there are good models of skyscrapers and their integrity".

This entire issue revolves around the effect of a tremendous falling dynamic load and the only dynamics that skyscrapers normally deal with are wind and earthquakes.

When has anyone ever modeled a top down gravitational collapse of a building that has stood for more than 10 years?

The NCSTAR1 report says that at the B6 level the weight distribution between the core and the perimeter is 47% and 53%. I don't recall which of those is core but it is so close to 50-50 I don't worry about the difference.

If the live load was equally distributed on every floor then at each corner more would be on the perimeter columns than on the core. But I would presume the weight of the elevator motors and counterweights would be in the core.

psik

 

.
Cross bracing is in a bridge because it extends outward over empty space. That funny looking upside down L shaped building in Beijing that was next to the hotel that burned undoubtedly had cross bracing. But a normal skyscraper where there is supporting mass underneath all of the way down it is not necessary.

psik

 

You really are drawing so many parrallels with the intelligent design movement. I believe this argument was central to Ben Steins No Intelligence Allowed movie.

You forget how many are retired and would have nothing left to lose in coming out to support something like this.

 

Kenny, the bottom line is that, when it comes to professionals in such relevant fields such as architecture and engineering who support the official story , you have no numbers. If you ever get some, let me know.

 

Thats the point though. Cross bracing's are for the "Transition of Load". WTC 1 & 2 according to pictures and diagrams were not build for such a transition, which would suggest in the cause of a collapse, a complete unhindered collapse.

 

.
Utter nonsense. A skyscraper depends on compression. It has to support a load pushing straight down.

Provide a link talking about 'Cross bracing's are for the "Transition of Load"'.

psik

 

So far nothing you have said gives any indication that you know what you are talking about.

All you have done so far is make critical remarks with no basis for them.

Maybe if we saw some calculations from you that could change our opinion. Somehow I have a feeling we won't be seeing you provide any of those to back up your comments though.

 

Source for compression?

I'm not sourcing that skyscrapers are suppose to have crossbracings, what I'm trying to point out is that cross bracings would have increase the overall strength of a building to be able to withstand greater force application. Like in the instance of a collapse. Otherwise the structure would of been prone to twisting.

 

Scott, there are no lists for such things. I can't provide you with a list of biologists who accept evolution, but that doesn't mean that evolution isn't accepted by consensus.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific consensus agrees that the towers fell because of plane & fire damage.

You can claim that this is because kooks are too afraid to voice their beliefs on the matter, but if that is the case, then they can't have a whole lot of confidence in their evidence, can they?

If truthers want to have their claims accepted in science, instead of making a list of engineers on some silly website, they need to follow the scientific method and be judged by their peers.

 

.
There is something missing about your knowledge alright. That cross bracing you see in the corners of the inner core is just for the kangaroo cranes that lifted tons of material up the side of the building. That is not part of the core.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The cranes had to deal with torsional forces in the process of reaching out over the side of the building. They were called kangaroo cranes. They came from Australia and had some special design that allowed them to be jacked up with the building. It was a new engineering development at the time.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

psik

 

post the prestigious architectural firms that support the "it was a bomb" movement.
post the same for engineering firms.

 

It is not proof that these people accept the present official story just because they aren't saying anything.

There is also the reality that many have not yet critically looked into the controversy.

By default most people will initially uncritically accept a government story until given reason not to.

Just about everyone who no longer accepts the present government story on 911, did initially, prior to looking into it more deeply.

 

i remember reading somewhere the perimeter bore the majority of the load.

 

Irrelevant. The same could be said of most conspiracy theories. I’m sure those who decided Elvis was still alive believed the official story initially.

 

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#999907

Have a read of the personal statements of these ae911 supporters. Many of them talk about free fall of all three buildings, pools of molten steel, symmetrical collapse, photo evidence of cut steel, collapse into own footprint, jet fuel not being able to melt steel, Silverstein saying ‘Pull’, squibs ect.

681 architects and engineers may sound impressive to some but many of them appear to have not researched the issue and have signed the petition based on incorrect information and lies.

 

I never said the core columns were only connected every third floor. They had horizontal beams connecting them at every floor.

You would be lying by saying I said that Trippy.

I have said that each of the core columns were composed of three story sections which were butt or groove welded together at their ends. This would be a vertical connection and maybe you just didn't understand. You really shouldn't have the audacity you seem to with your obviously limited understanding. Ignorance and arrogance and is a bad combination.