The RMackey "Cross-Bracing" Lie

[T.A.M.]

Well why don't you shut up and wait for the man to return here and defend his statements...I am sure he can, and will.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

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".

 

[chran]

[...] Even ignoring the diagonal braces [...]

Does that mean that you're willing to concede the argument that those structures are, in fact, cranes?

 

[A W Smith]

Thats clearly a tower crane lift. And as "bracing'' it doesnt even tie into the obvious 36" x 16" core column behind it right above that orange hard hat. I think you just broke all the strings on your guitar.

 

[Architect]

TS,

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

Any sign of more photos yet, Troothie?

And remember, in my job I get to see cross bracing all the time (bloody dull it is too)

 

[R.Mackey]

Well, well, look here:

My own private stalker is back. How flattering. Clearly I've proven to be a thorn in the CT's side.

TruthSeeker1234, have you learned nothing? You've already had to issue a formal apology to me once, thanks to your abysmal reading comprehension. It looks like you're going to have to do so again.

Now then, let's take a look at your utterly disingenuous argument:

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.
[qimg]http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg[/qimg]
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.

I've bolded the critical errors in TruthSeeker1234's argument.

His initial presentation of this image to me was in this post, made September 9th of last year.

My reply to that post, also made September 9th -- you'll note the above passage is quoted in my reply, so there should be no doubt to what I was referring -- asked him the following questions:

1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?

You can read the follow-ups in that thread. Suffice to say that I never received a satisfactory answer to even a single question.

In that same post, I further clarified the remarks I made in my original critique of Gordon Ross:

And you really should read my entire critique of Ross's paper. Your quote of me, out of context, only points out that Ross treated the problem one-dimensionally, assumed the columns would compress to failure, and that he is assuming columns are pinned on both ends.

As NIST has recently clarified, the actual collapse mechanism was highly three-dimensional in nature, with the columns being twisted into the interior, pulled in by sagging floor trusses at each floor.

If there are such huge cross-braces as you claim, these braces would be part of the load-bearing structure. Funny that not even Ross accounts energy to break them, as he would have to do, if they were real.

So now you all understand what I really said.

Now let's rejoin TruthSeeker1234's latest logical trainwreck:

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.

Incorrect. Note above where you now apply the modifier "at every story," which is not only irrelevant for purposes of what I said, but also wrong.

I was reviewing Gordon Ross's paper. This only considers the impact floors. In my critique, I applied the same assumptions that Gordon Ross did.

Did Gordon Ross include cross bracing in his calculations? No. Show me where he did -- you can't. Thus, I didn't either.

Now then, about bracing on every story, that is simply wrong. The WTC Towers had diagonal cross-bracing only in select locations. I now quote from the NIST report, NISTNCSTAR1-2A, page 2:

The primary structural systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams, and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems.

Figure 1.2 of that same report, on Page 3, shows an example side view, showing both floors with diagonal cross-bracing, and floors without.

This is perhaps most clearly seen in the model representation plotted in Figure 3.3, page 33, same report. The right view shows, in red, the major areas of cross-bracing. And you will also note just how few places had it.

I could go on and on and on, but this should be sufficient.

So let me summarize your little lie, TruthSeeker1234:

1. I reviewed Ross's paper, and noted that on the collapse floors, treating the problem as purely vertical was an oversimplification.
2. You interpreted this as me claiming there was no cross-bracing on the impact floors.
3. In fact, there was no cross-bracing on the impact floors, as I have demonstrated here, but
4. that didn't matter, because I was critiquing Ross's approach, and using his assumptions. He didn't include cross-bracing.
5. You stew about this for four months, and then come back here, claiming that I had said there was no cross-bracing anywhere in the structure.
6. You furthermore insist there was cross-bracing on every floor.
7. Your lie is, therefore, two-fold. You were mistaken about the actual construction, and you misconstrued my words independently.

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?

Yes, you did -- and I refused, for reasons which should surprise no one. Your recent conduct only reinforces my conviction that there is hardly any point talking to you, given (a) your stalker-like behavior, (b) your chronic problems with reading comprehension, and (c) your absolutely incorrect proclamations to the world that I am the one lying.

As for "real names, real faces, real evidence," I have nothing to hide. My login is my real name, and my avatar is a picture of me. You, on the other hand... You will pay expenses? Need I remind you that I won a bet when you welched on an earlier proposal that you'd made?

Now, listen carefully, Mr. Baker: This crap stops now. I tolerate your bumbling incompetence and spurious accusations in other threads, such as this one, so long as the conversation has an educational benefit. But your calling me out over your own failure to understand English educates no one. Therefore:

If you call me out like this again, as you have now done twice, I will seek moderation immediately.

And Ace, grow up.

 

[Alt+F4]

...my avatar is a picture of me.

That's you? I thought that photo came from a wanted poster in a Mexican post office.

Seriously though, great post. This guy thinks a star wars energy beam destroyed the WTC yet he seems suprised when folks don't buy his bad science.

 

[T.A.M.]

This guy thinks a star wars energy beam destroyed the WTC yet he seems suprised when folks don't buy his bad science.

Well that is because "Judy Would!!"

lol

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

That's you? I thought that photo came from a wanted poster in a Mexican post office.

Yup, that's me. Picture taken by John Amodea for Paintball 2Xtremes Magazine.

Beware, evil-doers!

 

[uk_dave]

It should be pointed out that diagonal bracing of the core structure at every floor level would make it a wee bit difficult to fit some of the essential elements of the building...... such as door openings.

 

[hellaeon]

im still lost as to how double bracing or diagonal bracing fits into the secret government job. What relevance would this play? To try and insist the official report is wrong, thus everything cant be believed and thereofre this is 100% evidence the government did 9/11???

Ace, stick to music, the creative side at least is subject to opinion, not facts.

 

[uruk]

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".

The floor trusses were an intergal part of the stability of the building. Sort of flying buttress style. The building was refered to as a "tube within a tube" design

 

[defaultdotxbe]

im still lost as to how double bracing or diagonal bracing fits into the secret government job. What relevance would this play? To try and insist the official report is wrong, thus everything cant be believed and thereofre this is 100% evidence the government did 9/11???

Ace, stick to music, the creative side at least is subject to opinion, not facts.

i think his argument is that if the core was braced against lateral loads it shouldnt have fallen after the rest of the building collapsed

this of course ignores the design specs that state the perimeter columns bore all the lateral load and ignores the fact that a 110 story building collapsed around the core, inflicting an unknown amount of damage

 

[Foolmewunz]

Moving along. Nothing to see here.

(I thought I woke up and had misplaced four months of my life.)

 

[WilliamSeger]

FWIW, I think this picture settles the crane tower question:

They were kangaroo cranes, but instead of the usual method of erecting a temporary tower (by inserting pre-fab sections as the top section was lifted), the climbing sections were modified to lift themselves up the elevator shafts, as can be seen clearly at the top of the left tower.

 

[GlennB]

FWIW, I think this picture settles the crane tower question:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

They were kangaroo cranes, but instead of the usual method of erecting a temporary tower (by inserting pre-fab sections as the top section was lifted), the climbing sections were modified to lift themselves up the elevator shafts, as can be seen clearly at the top of the left tower.

That's a spectacular photo, but please don't show it to Christophera

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's a spectacular photo, but please don't show it to Christophera

chris has already seen it, and if hes any indication, you just cant settle anything with these nuts

 

[Alt+F4]

They were kangaroo cranes, but instead of the usual method of erecting a temporary tower (by inserting pre-fab sections as the top section was lifted), the climbing sections were modified to lift themselves up the elevator shafts, as can be seen clearly at the top of the left tower.

Correct. According to TwinTowers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center by Angus K. Gillespie (1999), the lower 80 feet of the cranes fitted into the elevator core “like a sword in a sheath” in order to incorporate the hydraulic lift system that secured and lifted the cranes.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

FWIW, I think this picture settles the crane tower question:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg

They were kangaroo cranes, but instead of the usual method of erecting a temporary tower (by inserting pre-fab sections as the top section was lifted), the climbing sections were modified to lift themselves up the elevator shafts, as can be seen clearly at the top of the left tower.

You'll want to edit that link. You're hotlinking, which is against Rule 4.

 

[rwguinn]

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".

Yup--It is very simple.
You are too simple to understand the first principle of structural stability, and way too simple to understand any mechanics and/or physics.
When you get a basic education, and can understand that 2+2=4 for all values of "2" AND "4", THEN WE CAN TALK.
Till then, don't try to tell experts their jobs.