Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[stateofgrace]

"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." NIST FAQ 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Is it so surprising that we can't understand how the core columns came down, considering the fact, that NIST doesn't even explain what happened to them? Just because the floors and perimeter columns collapse, doesn't mean the core columns will do the same thing. So how did the 37 non-severed core columns on WTC 2 fail, when only 12 of them suffered minimal heat? That leaves 25 non-severed non-heated core columns with only 5 of the 25 suffering any damage (1 light damage, 1 heavy damage & 3 moderate damage) So that leaves 20 completely undamaged and unheated core columns. Now, how did those fail?

Let me get this straight .

Massive dynamic weight falls on floors, perimeter columns peel way and after all this total destruction around the cores, you expect 20 completely undamged core columns to just stand there?

Do you honestly expect what remains of the core to stand?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Do you have a source for the perimeter columns normally taking 50% of the gravity load?

Once the floors had collapse, what load was the core supporting? It only had to support itself

page 6 of NISTs final report

The dense array of columns along the building perimeter was to resist the lateral load due to hurricane-force winds, while also sharing the gravity loads about equally with the core columns.

when the perimeter columns failed the floors hadnt collapsed yet, so there load was tranferred to the core columns, which were almost instantly overwhelmed by the weight

after the collapse was more or less complete some part of the core was left standing, but this quickly collapsed for 2 reasons

1: i was not designed to withstand any transverse load at all
2: it sustained an unknown amount of damage during the collapse

 

[uk_dave]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Just because the floors and perimeter columns collapse, doesn't mean the core columns will do the same thing.

Yes it does.

Your ignorance of construction should make you more cautious in your posts.

They didn't construct the core and then the outer columns and then the floors. They construct the building in sections as it progresses upwards.

The core and external columns provide support for the floors, I'm fairly sure you grasped that concept.

But you seem to have a problem getting your head around the idea that the floors also braced the inner and outer 'tube' of columns.

Without the floors those structures would not have stood.

Take away the floors and they collapse.

Add in a catastrophic collapse involving a massive amount of debris falling chaotically down through the building and you have even more reason to believe that the core columns would also come down.

Educate yourself and leave your ego at the door.

You may benefit

 

[28th Kingdom]

page 6 of NISTs final report

when the perimeter columns failed the floors hadnt collapsed yet, so there load was tranferred to the core columns, which were almost instantly overwhelmed by the weight

If the perimeter columns failed first and they were holding 50% of the gravity load...than why didn't the floors fall down from where they were connected to the perimeter columns? What do you mean by the perimeter columns failed...do you mean the floors weren't connected to them anymore?

 

[beachnut]

If the perimeter columns failed first and they were holding 50% of the gravity load...than why didn't the floors fall down from where they were connected to the perimeter columns? What do you mean by the perimeter columns failed...do you mean the floors weren't connected to them anymore?

you are posting in the wrong thread!

Wake up!

 

[stateofgrace]

Do you have a source for the perimeter columns normally taking 50% of the gravity load?

Once the floors had collapse, what load was the core supporting? It only had to support itself

This is a joke,right ?

Have you any idea how they build these Towers? Any at all ?

You are saying that they could have just build a super tall core and it would have just stood there ?

Do you understand the floors braced the core to the external superstructure ?

Please give it a rest.

ETA, Beachnut is correct 28th here is your thread with all the questions you have still yet to address.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70262

Get to it.

 

[28th Kingdom]

They didn't construct the core and then the outer columns and then the floors. They construct the building in sections as it progresses upwards.

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

so they built a 1300 foot core, then went back down to the bottom and built the floors?

they erected the core first, however it was a maximum of 30 feet above the perimeter and floor assemblies, theres no reason to beleive the entire core could stand on its own without the rest of the building

but yeah, this really shoudl be in a new thread

 

[Bell]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

Jezus f-ing Christ. Go ask if Christophera can come out and play and stop insulting our brains.

 

[Wizard]

This is a joke,right ?

Have you any idea how they build these Towers? Any at all ?

You are saying that they could have just build a super tall core and it would have just stood there ?

Do you understand the floors braced the core to the external superstructure ?

Please give it a rest.

ETA, Beachnut is correct 28th here is your thread with all the questions you have still yet to address.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70262

Get to it.

The core columns were cross braced to each other and were in the bedrock at the bottom. Why would the core not stand by itself?

 

[stateofgrace]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The core columns were cross braced to each other and were in the bedrock at the bottom. Why would the core not stand by itself?

even if the core were braced to withstand tranverse forces (which it wasnt) you are assuming it would have sustained no damage when a 110 story building collapsed around it

 

[Timble]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

You're a liar and and a troll, you know this isn't true, the same way that you knew the thermite story couldn't be true, despite your protests about not knowing how much thermite you'd need

From one of your own links.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

snip..
very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

You've read this document because a lot of your other quotes are cherry-picked from it.

 

[stateofgrace]

The core columns were cross braced to each other and were in the bedrock at the bottom. Why would the core not stand by itself?

So your big theory is now. The Tower collapses around the cores, the floors and the external superstructure are simply ripped away from it but it still stands, so they demolish it.

 

[beachnut]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

Wrong thread! And wrong to boot.

No, they built the building all at once, the outside is the lateral support the inside primary gravity load. The inside core does not support lateral loads. The core would be toppled by the wind!

The core can not stand without the exterior support. you are wrong

 

[ref]

Evidence?

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago Islamabad -
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

[New York Times 07/03/06]
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

No use hunting the dead guy?

[CNN]
[A Bush administration official] said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout.

Renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down. The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most."

Of course, you have seen the 2004 tape and believe it's authenticy. But think about it, if he was dead, would you really expect they would leave us a body to find, and prove you 100% he is dead?

Well, for one thing, the investigators have the bandana. Secondly, what makes you think it was on someone's head at the moment of impact? Were you in the plane?

Go to rcfp moussaoui trial website to see a high resolution picture of the bandana.

Still can post no links, but there you find a good resolution picture of the bandana.

There you find a good resolution picture of the evidence. We have been told by multiple sources, even the movie United 93, that the terrorists wore red head bandanas. This fits it perfectly. You are a terrorist in a cockpit. Flying 500mph straight to the ground upside down in a 45 to 90 degree angle. Cockpit is the first part of the plane to hit the ground. And this item did not bury itself deep into the ground? We would see evidence of that in the fabric.

Then You might argue, this was some passanger's bandana. Even if this was in the backseat, it had about 2 tenths of a seconds to create enough force to overcome the 500mph impact burial, the explosion and so on. Believe me, bandanas catch fire easily. You have to keep in mind, that unlike other crashes which have some quite intact surviving items, this was a head on crash upside down at full speed. Multiple times the force of a flat down belly crash for exaple.

THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003

Okay show me the informal then.

That's 11 minutes in one case and 7 minutes in the other. That doesn't qualify (IMO) as a "long time". And even if it did qualify as such, it proves absolutely nothing, except that it took a few minutes for the hijackers to overcome the flight crews, clear the bodies out, and get their bearings before making their initial turns.

11 minutes to the wrong direction equals 22 minutes of extra time wasted, fuel consumpted and risk of getting caught. You have just speculated the events on board.

 

[uk_dave]

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.

no...wait.....

 

[Firestone]

Back on topic Questions for 9/11 Truthers:

Why do you claim that there are not enough visible remains of flight 93 and flight 77, yet find everything (like the bandana) that has survived the crash suspect?

 

[Karl Johannes]

im no truther but that bandana is a little suspect, do you think it just survived the crash completely unscathed or was it planted there to frame a guilty person (you know, to tighten up the evidence give the moussaoui jury a little extra) i know it wouldnt be necessary, but then again neither was the planted evidence at the OJ trial
i see no reason to doubt its validity, stranger things have happened. but it wouldnt be unprecedented if it were not genuine

 

[uk_dave]

I dunno... seems to me if you're going to plant evidence then you make sure it looks how people 'expect' it to look. If the general expectation is that it should be singed and torn then that is what you plant there.

But as has been mentioned previously, why is it assumed that this bandana was around someone's head at the time of impact? Any number of scenarios could be possible that would have ended with the bandana being placed or thrown somewhere within the plane which lead to it being found in near pristine (if that is the case) condition.

It's not much to hang a conspiracy on, much less your hat.