How 9/11 was done

[A W Smith]

OK, I'll be magnanimous and admit that the core ain't no Eiffel tower, so maybe, just maybe, if the core, provided it is standing alone AND is subjected to a hurricane, that under these conditions it might fall over (just maybe, I do not really believe that). What I reject completely however is that it is possible that the core will implode in itself just because it is no longer supporting 110 floors (unless it receives some Israeli assistance).

This notion is ridiculous.

Can you point out the X or cross bracing remaining in these spires? If not. Can you point out a mechanism to resist lateral loads?
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/Spire_hi-res.jpg

 

[9/11-investigator]

You understand the floor trusses braced the inner core to the external columns, right? You do actually understand the relationship between the external columns, the floors and the inner core, right?

Bracing, ever heard of it?

I understand the first 2 lines.

Bracing... I had to look it up: 'reinforce, strengthen'. Right?

What's your point?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

OK, I'll be magnanimous and admit that the core ain't no Eiffel tower, so maybe, just maybe, if the core, provided it is standing alone AND is subjected to a hurricane, that under these conditions it might fall over (just maybe, I do not really believe that). What I reject completely however is that it is possible that the core will implode in itself just because it is no longer supporting 110 floors (unless it receives some Israeli assistance).

This notion is ridiculous.

the core was not designed to nor was it capable of standing on its own, the perimeter columns bore ALL horizontal loads (meaning far less than ahurricane, such as say, a light breeze, would cause the core to collapse once the sloor trusses and perimeter collumns were removed)

also, you act as if half a million tons of building collapsing around the core would do no damage to it whatsoever

 

[stateofgrace]

OK, I'll be magnanimous and admit that the core ain't no Eiffel tower, so maybe, just maybe, if the core, provided it is standing alone AND is subjected to a hurricane, that under these conditions it might fall over (just maybe, I do not really believe that). What I reject completely however is that it is possible that the core will implode in itself just because it is no longer supporting 110 floors (unless it receives some Israeli assistance).

This notion is ridiculous.

You do understand what bracing is, right?

 

[stateofgrace]

I understand the first 2 lines.

Bracing... I had to look it up: 'reinforce, strengthen'. Right?

What's your point?

My point,dear boy, is you have absolutly no idea how these towers were built, how the were held together and why they collapsed.

Bracing, explain it, fully, and what part the floor trusses played in bracing the towers together, please include in your explanation your understanding of the tube in tube design of the towers.

On you go

 

[stateofgrace]

Well?

Is it time to scuttle off to the conspiracy web sites and find out?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Can you point out the X or cross bracing remaining in these spires? If not. Can you point out a mechanism to resist lateral loads?
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/Spire_hi-res.jpg

Interesting picture; had not seen that one before.

I am not sure if I understand this English: "Can you point out the X or cross bracing remaining in these spires?"

'Spire' I assume is that remainder of the core right next to the smoke plume. It looks like that there are many remaining horizontal beams. Is that what you mean?

'Resist lateral load'? There is no lateral load, the wind and the photons radiated by the sun not included. It will implode anyway because what you really see is a bunch of beams, with the length of 10 m each, connected to each other with the remaining fragments of steel that have not been cut by the thermate.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Bollyn says this:

One of the Israeli agents was 27-year-old Lt. Peer Segalovitz, a platoon leader with Israeli special forces 605 battalion in the Golan Heights. Segalovitz and the 80-man platoon he commanded "specialized in demolition."

"Segalovitz acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars and anything else that he needed too," according to the report. If the Israeli "art student" intelligence operation is connected to 9-11, then the prevalence of military computer programmers and demolition experts among the agents would make sense given the evidence that the terror attacks of 9-11 required a great deal of expertise with computer networks and explosives.

Segalovitz is a likely candidate considering his credentials. But I do not really care if it was him or somebody other Israeli.

Yes, I'm aware of what Bollyn says. None of that puts Segalovitz in New York. And having credentials is not the same as being in New York, nor is being Jewish synonymous with being involved with 9/11.

On top of that, Bolly has zero - zero - evidence about explosives in the towers.

 

[twinstead]

I find it interesting that so few truthers even know how the towers were built.

 

[DavidJames]

I find it interesting that so few truthers even know how the towers were built.

The perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance.

 

[9/11-investigator]

the core was not designed to nor was it capable of standing on its own, the perimeter columns bore ALL horizontal loads (meaning far less than ahurricane, such as say, a light breeze, would cause the core to collapse once the sloor trusses and perimeter collumns were removed)

Of course it was not designed to stand alone.
And it was standing on its own since 1969.
Why would a light breeze cause the core to collapse if it had supported 110 floors for more than 30 years!?

Fall over maybe, but not collapse.

also, you act as if half a million tons of building collapsing around the core would do no damage to it whatsoever

The core would be freed of its load.
Your legs do not get hurt when you drop your pants.

The reality is that all 47 core columns where sliced in 10 m long pieces. Had this not been the case then New York either had 2 Eiffel towers of its own or several buildings more destroyed by the tilted cores.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, I'm aware of what Bollyn says. None of that puts Segalovitz in New York. And having credentials is not the same as being in New York, nor is being Jewish synonymous with being involved with 9/11.

On top of that, Bolly has zero - zero - evidence about explosives in the towers.

Let's drop Segalovitz and Bollyn and concentrate on the core and why it collapsed.

 

[stateofgrace]

Of course it was not designed to stand alone.
And it was standing on its own since 1969.
Why would a light breeze cause the core to collapse if it had supported 110 floors for more than 30 years!?

Fall over maybe, but not collapse.



The core would be freed of its load.
Your legs do not get hurt when you drop your pants.

The reality is that all 47 core columns where sliced in 10 m long pieces. Had this not been the case then New York either had 2 Eiffel towers of its own or several buildings more destroyed by the tilted cores.

I had to stop after three laughing dogs.

Bracing,911, explain its role in the construction of WTC 1 and 2.How did the floors brace the core to the external columns?

On you go.

 

[beachnut]

core can not stand without the shell

the shell is why the WTC could stand in a hurricane

the core was needed to hold a little over half the total weigh

study up on the WTC 9/11-investigator

why is part of your screen name, investigator, ironic?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Of course it was not designed to stand alone.
And it was standing on its own since 1969.
Why would a light breeze cause the core to collapse if it had supported 110 floors for more than 30 years!?

i could have sworn floor trusses and perimeter columns were built along with the core in 1969

The core would be freed of its load.

not horizontal load, the core was not designed to bear any horizontal load at all

Your legs do not get hurt when you drop your pants.

my pants dont weigh 500,000 tons


[/quote]The reality is that all 47 core columns where sliced in 10 m long pieces. Had this not been the case then New York either had 2 Eiffel towers of its own or several buildings more destroyed by the tilted cores.[/quote]
they were not sliced, they failed at the joints where the 30 foot sections were connected during contruction

it would be physically impossible for the towers or the core to tilt completely over without collapsing, the fact that you dont understand this means you know nothing of how skyscrapers are built

 

[WildCat]

Of course it was not designed to stand alone.
And it was standing on its own since 1969.
Why would a light breeze cause the core to collapse if it had supported 110 floors for more than 30 years!?

No, it didn't. It was supported by the trusses to the outer columns. It couldn't stand on its own, during construction the core coumns had to be cross-braced to keep them upright.

Fall over maybe, but not collapse.

The can only "fall over" a bit before they collapse under their own weight.

The core would be freed of its load.
Your legs do not get hurt when you drop your pants.

The reality is that all 47 core columns where sliced in 10 m long pieces.

No, that's how it was built. 10m lengths fit nicely on a truck, it would be kind of difficult to deliver a 1300 ft. column to the job site, don't you think?

Had this not been the case then New York either had 2 Eiffel towers of its own or several buildings more destroyed by the tilted cores.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let's drop Segalovitz and Bollyn and concentrate on the core and why it collapsed.

Yes lets.

When you are ready explain what role the core played in supporting the floors and how the floors were braced between the inner core and the external columns.Could you please explain fully what happens when the bracing between the core and external coulmns is violently removed?

When you are ready.

 

[Sabrina]

At this point, I can't decide if 9/11 investigator is really THAT uninformed or if he's just being deliberately obtuse in order to try and get a rise out of the skeptics here. Either way, I have to give his comparison of hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials collapsing around relatively lightweight steel beams to.... *drumroll please* a pair of pants falling around someone's legs at least.... five laughing dogs.



I know next to nothing about physics; I'll be the first to admit that. But even I know that this particular comparison is so ludicrously stupid that's it's almost impossible to comprehend the convoluted path someone's mind would have to take in order to render such a comparison even the tiniest smidgen valid.

 

[9/11-investigator]

the shell is why the WTC could stand in a hurricane

the core was needed to hold a little over half the total weigh

OK, I'll accept that for a moment... but why the collapse of the core into tiny peaces?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let's drop Segalovitz and Bollyn and concentrate on the core and why it collapsed.

You brought it up. And now you want to drop it??

Fine. The core is not stable as a freestanding structure. Again, it requires the presence of the rest of the structure to remain standing; the core handled the gravity load and was braced against the perimeter structure. That's simply a fact of the Twin Towers construction; some buildings are built with freestanding cores, the Towers weren't. What's so hard to understand about that?