OHES NOEHS so you now you have to ignore me.......
How the WTC Core Supports Weakened.
- Thread starter SBrown
- Start date
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Oh nock it off. Stick to argument and lay off the BS. You will either debate him or you won't.
Which is it?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
No, it did not.
You are incorrect.
There were either 44 or 47 columns (depending on which tower).
The outer columns (ringing the core) were about 52" by 22". But they were not solid steel. They were a box made of 5" thick steel.
The interior columns were much smaller, 36" by 16" IIRC, and were made of 2" thick steel.
Nowehere in the buildings did "4 foot thick steel" exist.
Another thing to understand is the difference between static load and dynamic load. The buildings were built to support 6 times the static load (actually, I recall hearing 8, but either way). The static load is similar to the maximun breaking weight of a piece of rope. It's the total force it can withstand, not the mass of objects.
As an example, take a rope that has a maximum breaking strength of, say, 1000 lbs. If you buy this in a store, it'll be listed as a 250 lb. working strength. But you could tie up 100 lbs. on it. However, if you tug it while it had that 1000 lbs, it'd break. Dynamic load includes not just the weigth being supported, but the force with which that weight pushes, as well.
Likewise with the towers. When the upper floors fell, That acceleration and impact was far more than 6 or 8 times the static load. Even considering static load, you had 6 to 30 (approximately) floors above the impact sites that crashed onto the floors below them. In both cases, that would go over the 6 times static load limit, causing the impacted floor to give. When it hit the next one, you get a repeat of the process all the way down.
Another thing to consider is that the core was designed for the buildings weight ot be distributed up and down. If the entire weight of the building was statically attached to the core at one point, it would fall as well.
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 985
I figured it out; I know how the illuminati did it. They didn’t need to drill holes into the concrete to plant the charges. They were flushing cherry bombs, made of C4 and thermite, down the toilets. See they had several hundred MIBS go into the WTC on the night of 9/10. They went and flushed enough charges to clog the pipes in the core, so then when activated they took out all the supports. It makes perfect sense now
Quick, I'll make up a web page expounding my idea to the world, because we all know that shouting from an internet soapbox is the only way to get the "truth" out. And the Illuminati never reads the net, and will never track me dow ..................................................................................
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TERMINATED. MOVE ALONG CITIZEN, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Quick, I'll make up a web page expounding my idea to the world, because we all know that shouting from an internet soapbox is the only way to get the "truth" out. And the Illuminati never reads the net, and will never track me dow ..................................................................................
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TERMINATED. MOVE ALONG CITIZEN, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
No, they just got enough people to flush all the toilets at the same time!
SBrown said:
Hardly. Many of us point to Gravy because he did a very extensive, well-documented, and logical examination of popular 9/11 myths and LC. This examination has stood up to review and attack by CTs. As he has spent so much time in researching the subject well, he is ina good position to add to the discussion. We're not lackeys (except to Global Conspiracy Network. Number 72300 reporting in sirs!) . No one can know everything. If I had a question about 9/11 myths, I would ask Gravy (though other input would be more than welcome). If I wanted to know about explosives I would ask Huntsman. If I wanted know about the scams psychics were pulling with missing children I would ask KellyJ. There is a large volume of useful info here, if you're willing to look. This includes a several threads dealing with the issues of the WTC collapse discussed. Not only Gravy, but many others contributed their knowledge and, more importantly, their questions.
While there has been some insults hurled, most of the criticism has been of your argument, not you. That's what happens on a skeptics board. Someone presents an argument. That argument is vigorously examined. We look to logic and rationality. Just because YOU give a theory weight does not make the theory logical or even special. In fact, your beliefs should be irrelevant. The theory simply is. It is supported by verifiable facts or it is not. If you post here, you should expect your theory to be attacked. Except demands for evidence.
I cannot speak for the other posters here, but I suspect there will be some agreement (which has nothing to do with us being a herd). If we seem aggressive or determined to demand facts, its because we've had to deal with irrational people before. We deal with this over and over again.
SBrown said:
Lastly, we're not talking in code when we mentions socks. A sock, or sock puppet, is a fake registration. If a person has been banned or suspended or is generally infamous (see Killik, 1inChrist), they create a fake persona to continue posting. Occassional, a person will have several socks to create the illusion of support (Sock 1: "I think X." Sock 2: "You know, you're right!", Sock 3: "I think Sock 1 is brilliant!"). Your posts sound remarkably like a known troll. I hope this is not the case and you're here for honest discussion.
tacodaemon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 571
Have any truthers claimed yet that the hollow steel columns were filled with explosives when the building was built, like how Christophera thinks some of the "concrete core" was C4 instead of concrete? I'm afraid to look.
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 985
OK, that's it. On lunch I'll get pictures of the WTC 2 support column that was set up as a memorial. All steel, hollow and no burn makrs form cutting.
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
Yeah, exactly. The floor trusses provided the lateral support for the core and perimeter columns. The fires weakened many of these and the resultant sagging not only lessened the load bearing capacity of the columns by removing rigid lateral support but also by pulling the columns out of place by upto 55in on the south face of the North Tower, according to NIST.
How long can a 13.5in deep perimeter column support the columns of the floors above whilst being pulled inwards 55in? Answer: Not long.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Is SBrown gone, now? If so, then Darn! My questions weren't answered: How does SBrown think the suports collapsed? Based on what evidence?
On suspension for spamming the forum. I forget for how long.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Doesn't really matter if she was suspended or not, I doubt you'd ever get a straight answer to your question from her either way.
I'm waiting for them to claim it was assembled with explosive bolts.
http://www.mcselph.com/exbolt.html