Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Christopher7]

Cross diagonal bracing on the corner box sections??

The core would have stood unsupported??

At the beginning of the cllapse 80% of the mass was outside the footprint??

This is unbelievable stuff from C7.

Even though he doesnt want to, I suggest he slink back to his WTC7 thread.

Sorry to hear about your reading impediment. You are 1 out of 3 in reading comprehension.

Yes, the core could stand alone.

ETA: Make that 1 out of 4.
Why dont you tell us what held up the floors?
[I did]

 

[funk de fino]

Sorry to hear about your reading impediment. You are 1 for 3 in reading comprehension.

Yes, the core could stand alone.

Apparently they are your claims and they are false. It does not take a reading impediment to see that.

The core could not stand alone. What braced it for lateral deflection if it was on its own? How did the floors, perimeter columns and core columns work in unison?

Describe the function of each.

You really should go and do some research into this buildings construction. Its not like your other thread where you can throw out accusations of fake photos and fantasy explosives and call people liars and hope no-one notices your lack of knowledge.

You will be exposed here very easily and it will be quite embarassing to watch

 

[funk de fino]

Why dont you tell us what held up the floors?
[I did]

No. you never.

why did you miss this?

Why did large amounts of the core remain standing after the perimeter columns and floors had collapsed? As shown in the videos.

Then they fell because they had no support.

Or are you denying this happened?

How did explosives or thermite leave these core sections standing?

 

[A W Smith]

Go ahead Chris, Point out all the bracing you were attempting to draw our attention to in the image you posted,



























Oh i'm sorry? It's not there yet? What was your point?

 

[Christopher7]

Why did large amounts of the core remain standing after the perimeter columns and floors had collapsed? As shown in the videos.

Because they still had support.

Then they fell because they had no support.

What removed that support after the collapse had finished?

How did explosives or thermite leave these core sections standing?

Nobody's perfect.

 

[lapman]

No. you never.

why did you miss this?

Why did large amounts of the core remain standing after the perimeter columns and floors had collapsed? As shown in the videos.

Then they fell because they had no support.

Or are you denying this happened?

How did explosives or thermite leave these core sections standing?

While he's at it, I would like for him to point out the exposives and Thermite Cutting Charges^TM in this picture.

 

[buka001]

CHRISTOPHER7 The 4 box girder columns on the corner what are they? I'll tell you. They are the columns for the CRANES!!! And were removed after the construction. These are temporary supports for cranes.

 

[funk de fino]

Because they still had support.

Sufficient to withstand lateral deflection?

What removed that support after the collapse had finished?

There was no support, the floors and perimter columns were gone. Without this the core fell.

Nobody's perfect.

Where were the thermite or explosive fitted? Why is there no evidence of them in any video or audio or pics?

Why did the perimeter columns bow in the way?

 

[uruk]

An object bounces when it encounters a solid immovable surface. If the surface takes up the energy and collapses, there is no bounce.

I guess you've never heard of Newton's laws.

 

[Bell]

Christopher7 (or for the readers who ARE interested) here are some pictures that clearly show the cranes standing on those columns:

http://thebizzare.com/cool/world-trade-center-construction/

 

[Christopher7]

CHRISTOPHER7 The 4 box girder columns on the corner what are they? I'll tell you. They are the columns for the CRANES!!! And were removed after the construction. These are temporary supports for cranes.

Yes they were supports for the cranes. Please post your source that confirms they were removed.

 

[uruk]

Do you think the top section will remain intact while destroying the entire structure below it?

I guess you've never heard of momentum of aggregate mass.

A shot gun blast is composed of tiny disarticulated shot yet all those shots together can blow a hole on something. Why is that?

 

[Christopher7]

You didn't use any of your own calculations to show your conclusions are correct.

I used the NIST calculations because that's what funk used as the explanation of the collapses. Do you accept them?

 

[uruk]

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant.
The law of conservation of linear momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects (which has no interactions with external agents) is constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system

This is the same as Newton 1st law
1) "A particle will stay at rest or continue at constant velocity unless acted on by an external unbalanced force."

~snip~.

Acceleration due to gravity and potential energy is an external unbalanced force. That is untill terminal velocity is achieved.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes they were supports for the cranes. Please post your source that confirms they were removed.

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?...lay_order=3&sub_display_order=2&mini_id=60026

engineers brought in Australian-made "kangaroo" cranes, self-powered cranes powered by diesel motors that could hoist themselves up as the building grew higher. At the end of construction, thesecranes had to be disassembled and brought down by elevator.

 

[dtugg]

I used the NIST calculations because that's what funk used as the explanation of the collapses. Do you accept them?

I accept them. I don't accept your attempt twist them around to fit your delusions. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even know what the laws of conversation of energy and momentum are without looking it up on Wikipedia.

 

[A W Smith]

Chris, point out the braced climbing towers which would render the floor space unusable in those four corners in this floor plan below

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I will highlight this even though it's been some time since this was made

The core was self supporting. It carried its own weight plus the weight of the floors and was not dependent on the floors for support.

As stated multiple times this is absolutely wrong. The only section of core structure specifically designed to resist both lateral and vertical loads was near the base where additional bracing was applied where the perimeter columns were less "clustered" (for lack of better wording) to allow entry ways in and out of the building for normal use (Image reference here). The remainder of the core was designed chiefly for gravity loads -- that is, the vertical loading which the building would be subjected to from its design loads. The perimeter columns provided the vast majority of the structure's rigidity against wind loads and other lateral loading factors. This is explained in numerous case studies, and I suggest you examine them:

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

Source
--------------------------

The [perimeter] wall functioned like a square tube, providing resistance to the combined effect of lateral wind and gravity loads.

The [core] columns mainly carried the gravity load.

The floors supported the gravity loads and provided lateral stability to the external walls.

Source
---------------------------

NIST gave no explanation of how the core collapsed.

They're not required to do so, the core was designed to carry the gravity loads within the buildings, they were never intended to stand alone. And as the case studies demonstrate the floor systems played a role in providing the lateral stability of the system as a whole. While we're at it, let's go back to that claim of yours about the large sections being ejected 600 ft... How powerful do you suppose such charges would need to be to get that result? More than this perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuGizBjDXo

Don't be shy now... give me a ballpark estimate using this as a reference.

Therefore they have NOT explained the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Conclusion is invalidated by your argument from ignorance.

Can you provide an explanation for the collapse of the core?

Already answered.

 

[tfk]

architect . My Quote was directed at Gravy. Me and him are both not Structual engineers.
If you want to Argue engineering and architecture do it with the architects and engineers for 911 truth.

GIE,

I've tried, and been turned down several times.

The engineers at ae911 don't seem to want to debate if an experienced engineer is on the other side of the table.

I've wondered about this. Would you have any suggestions as to why that might be?

tk

 

[Christopher7]

falling debris uses some of its kinetic energy to break all the truss seat connections. This will slow its rate of fall.

Correct, although the amount by which it will slow the rate of fall has yet to be determined.

Until it has been determined, no one can state that the collapse wasn't arrested as Prof. Jones states.

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly.

In other words, it would take nearly all the kinetic energy of 7 floors hitting an intact floor at the same time to break the floor supports.

No. Completely, utterly wrong. The vertical capacity of the columns [connections] was sufficient to carry the load of six additional floors if the load was applied suddenly, but with a zero initial velocity; in other words, the potential energy released by the compression of the lower structure would not be enough to break the supports. This is a very different situation from an upper block falling on to the lower block, because there is then the velocity produced by the additional potential energy released during the fall.

Read the FAQ again. They use the terminology "applied suddenly" which no doubt includes the fall factor. Do you think they missed that critical aspect?

You did not address the fact that all the falling floors did not come in contact with the intact floor at the same time. Most were still being supported by the core and exterior columns and came into contact with the intact floor one at a time.