The RMackey "Cross-Bracing" Lie

[TruthSeeker1234]

Even delusional OCTs should be able to follow this. RMackey was trying to critique Gordon Ross, when it appeared that Mackey was claiming that the core structures of the twin towers were not cross-braced. I challenged him with this picture.

http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg
This photo shows that the core structure had its own independent flooring system, effectively giving horizontal bracing at every story. All four corners are also diagonally braced at every story.


Evidence angers Mackey. He continued his delusion by claiming

The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the (core) column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides; . . ." -RMackey

So I corrected him:

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them. -TruthSeeker1234

To which Mackey replied:

Cross-braced, by the floor trusses. I thought that was obvious. -RMackey

Link to thread is here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1908927#post1908927

Clearly, RMackey is trying to get us to believe that the vertical core columns were only cross-braced by the floor assemblies, when this is utterly false. Mackey also claims that all of the diagonal bracing evident at the corners of the core structure was REMOVED.

I have openly challenged RMackey to a scientific 9/11 debate on TV, and he refused. My offer stands, and I will pay expenses. C'mon Mackey old friend, don't disappoint your fans. Real names, real faces, real evidence. What's your fear?

 

[Architect]

This photo shows that the core structure had its own independent flooring system, effectively giving horizontal bracing at every story.

Actually, that would depend upon the design of the floor structure. What do you claim this to be?

All four corners are also diagonally braced at every story.

Those look suspiciously like the cranes. Anyway you don't just brace corners, because they are the strongest part of any structure.

 

[GlennB]

Just for clarity - are you talking about diagonal cross-bracing, or horizontal bracing?

 

[Mancman]

Clearly, RMackey is trying to get us to believe that the vertical core columns were only cross-braced by the floor assemblies, when this is utterly false. Mackey also claims that all of the diagonal bracing evident at the corners of the core structure was REMOVED.

Yes, cranes generally are removed when a building has finished construction.

Oh dear, how embarrasing for you.

 

[Alt+F4]

Does anyone have information on that photograph? When was it taken? From what angle?

 

[Alt+F4]

I found this video very informative, it gives lots of details on the construction of the WTC (including the core supports and use of cranes):

Building the World Trade Center, produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983 with original footage of the towers under construction (18 minutes).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

 

[Alt+F4]

From the transcript of Building the World Trade Center:

"In August, 1968 actual steel construction began. Kangaroo cranes imported from Australia were used for the first time in the United States. The cranes were assembled on top of the core columns. Each could lift 60 tons at a time. They would be the driving force behind the towers' construction. The cranes had the ability to jack themselves up 36 feet at a jump. As the walls grew to the height of a crane, the crane would hoist itself up, a neighboring crane would swing core columns into place beneath it, and construction would continue."

 

[WildCat]

Wow, he's back here w/ this again, confusing the temporary crane supports w/ cross-bracing? TS1234, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are 100% wrong, as usual.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Perfect disinfo. Yes there were kangaroo cranes that were removed. There was also an independent floor system. There was also diagonal bracing at the corners. Clearly you all are unwilling to defend Mackey's assertions. This picture shows a floor truss. It also shows horizontal bracing of the core. It also shows diagonal bracing which is not a kangaroo crane.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture6.jpg

 

[Alareth]

Stunning display of willful ignorance. TS1234 I applaud your determination to go it your own way, even when it flys in the face of reality.

 

[Timble]

And what does the UFO in that picture have to do with the conspiracy TS123?

 

[WildCat]

Perfect disinfo.

That's a nice pic of the temporary crane supports.

 

[Architect]

TS,

I agree with Wildcat; these appear to be the crane supports. Do you have any other pictures?

 

[The Almond]

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of this thread. You're taking your objections to R.Mackey's argument from the first page of the "Momentum Transfer" thread and completely ignoring the many responses and explanations R.Mackey gave in response. Why are we rehashing this debate?

Edited to add:

The mass is the same, the "weight", in the real world, would actually depend on a few things. Surface area to mass ratio, for instance. The bigger that ratio, the more air will resist it from falling.

That's quite a little gem from that thread. Do you still think weight depends on the ratio of surface area to mass?

 

[apathoid]

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of this thread. You're taking your objections to R.Mackey's argument from the first page of the "Momentum Transfer" thread and completely ignoring the many responses and explanations R.Mackey gave in response. Why are we rehashing this debate?

TS thinks that if he can prove RMackey wrong about the cross-bracing, then he can declare him discredited and simply reject all of his other arguments because he was wrong about this. Not sure which fallacy that is, but that's the only explanation I can fathom.

Too bad for TS that he's the one who's wrong, as usual..

 

[fuelair]

Because he's the mighty TrooffreakerABZD AND has degrees and liscenses in structural design and engineering - which he has repeatedly shown us pictures of.... huh?......... Oh!.......... Sorry, wrong about those degrees and liscenses, My bad!!

 

[The Almond]

TS thinks that if he can prove RMackey wrong about the cross-bracing, then he can declare him discredited and simply reject all of his other arguments because he was wrong about this. Not sure which fallacy that is, but that's the only explanation I can fathom.

I suspected that much, but he seems to have declared a do-over on the momentum transfer thread, taking his arguments from the first page as though no discussion happened at all.

 

[WildCat]

I suspected that much, but he seems to have declared a do-over on the momentum transfer thread, taking his arguments from the first page as though no discussion happened at all.

That's because his arguments were pulverized into fine powder.

 

[Alareth]

Standard CT "debate" practice. When loosing an argument change the subject, return to original debunked argument at a later time.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

It's pretty simple. Mackey says that the floor trusses were the only cross-bracing that the core had. Even ignoring the diagonal braces, we still have an independent floor system in the core which provided bracing at every story. Mackey claims that if the floors broke away from the core, the core columns are "free to deflect to the side". It's clearly false. Mackey is too smart for this to be a mistake. The reason for the lie is that we are supposed to imagine that, without the floor assemblies, the core structure would just fall apart. This is why the 9/11 commission characterized the core as "a hollow steel shaft".