The RMackey "Cross-Bracing" Lie

TruthSeeker1234 said:
I was partly wrong, but mostly right. The crane supports were not part of the permanent structure.
Click to expand...

Which is ironic, given that you appear to be trying to show that any errors by MacKay make him a liar.

My central point about cross-bracing is correct: The core structures were abundantly cross-braced, horizontally and diagonally. The notion that the core columns would deflect to the sides absent the main floor trusses, as asserted by Mackey, is still totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Source? Kind of bracing, location, and purpose?
 
jhunter1163 said:
An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Yeah well be careful.... two shuttle crashes and countless mars cock ups, together with roof collapses due to snow loading, skyscrapers with insufficient foundations and really, really bad use of in-situ concrete facework, versus the end titles for a barbie movie..........

..... ok i go with the shuttle crashing into a snow loaded in-situ concrete facade!

:D
 
Hey, are you serious about the Barbie thing? My 5 year old watches the damned DVD's endlessly and I'm ready to murder everyone involved with them!
 
Architect said:
Hey, are you serious about the Barbie thing? My 5 year old watches the damned DVD's endlessly and I'm ready to murder everyone involved with them!
Click to expand...

Oh well in that case, ace did the incidental music also

and the animation

and the voices

wrote the damned thing too

paid for it

even burned the dvd's himself

(need an address?)
 
jhunter1163 said:
An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Isn't it downright...28K-ish? They know so much more than the experts, because it feels right! Don't be so left-brained, fool!
 
Architect said:
Hey, are you serious about the Barbie thing? My 5 year old watches the damned DVD's endlessly and I'm ready to murder everyone involved with them!
Click to expand...

Be careful, there. Ace is likely to read that as a threat and demand you either apologize or be banned from the board. Of course, he's a liar and doesn't follow through with his demands but there's always a slim chance he'll storm off for another month or two.
 
Loss Leader said:
Be careful, there. Ace is likely to read that as a threat and demand you either apologize or be banned from the board. Of course, he's a liar and doesn't follow through with his demands but there's always a slim chance he'll storm off for another month or two.
Click to expand...

So, basically, no down side?
 
jhunter1163 said:
An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This all reminds me of Paul Simon's appearance on Saturday Night Live back in the day, where he played one-on-one basketball against Connie Hawkins...

Yes, I know, Paul Simon won the match, but that was on television. This is reality. Troofers seem to have trouble with that distinction.

Anyway, since everyone else clearly understood what I was saying, I guess there's nothing for me to do but wait for TruthSeeker1234 to issue another humbling public apology. I'll be around if anybody needs me. :vk:
 
Last edited:
Now, listen carefully, Mr. Baker:
Click to expand...

wow, sorry if I missed this if it was obvious, i didnt read the whole thread -TruthSeeker1234 is Ace (the man) Baker! (why does he call himself Ace?)

Thats the guy on the TV trying to convince everyone that there were no Planes!! And the planes were stuck on in real time!!!

Am I right? I thought he was a real loon. Car crash TV. It was great!

(Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else)
 
yes Truthseeker1234 (was) Ace Baker.

Probably picked up the name because he or others thought he had some chops as a musician. (He did.)

He could write clearly, but he was a whole new kind of crazy.

I found him sort of fascinating.

He also posted on the issue of sympathectomy.

Apparently he'd had one, and bitterly regretted it.
 
OK, I am not an engineer, but I have studied Engineering a bit, and I have worked with engineering issues for a long time, so I think I understand the basic principles here. One of the first problems we have is the terminology here. What we are talking about “cross bracing” is more often termed “wind bracing,” since it is the function of this bracing to resist lateral loads (i.e. the wind). All structures need to resist lateral loads or they will fall down in the first wind storm. Conventional steel high rise buildings usually do this through the use of a stiffened core. Some cores are stiffened through the use of diagonal (or cross bracing) between the columns to form a vertical truss. Some buildings stiffen the core by building it out of concrete and using masonry infill between the columns. (i.e. the Windsor tower).

Some buildings use the exterior walls to provide wind bracing. The John Hancock building in Chicago has the diagonal bracing on the exterior of the building, giving it its distinctive look.

For the WTC towers, the wind bracing was also provided by the exterior walls. The close set columns with those wide spandrel plates between them formed what is known as a Vierendeel truss. Each exterior wall was extremely stiff in the plane of the wall. The floor slabs kept the walls in alignment to each other and redistributed the lateral loads from wall to wall.

On those floors were Vierendeel trusses existed on the exterior walls, there was no cross (or diagonal) bracing in the core structure.

Does this mean that there was not cross (or diagonal) bracing in the core area? Actually, no it doesn’t. There was, in fact cross bracing present in specific areas of the building.

First was the hat truss at the top of the structure. This bracing was intended to tie the exterior and the core elements of the structure together and it served an important role in redistributing the horizontal and lateral loads on the building. This bracing extended from the core to the exterior walls.

There are two other key locations of cross bracing, just within the core structure. Cross bracing was installed in those locations where the Vierendeel truss did not exist on the outside of the building. The first and most important was in the bottom seven floors of the building, below the trident split of the exterior columns. There were no spandrel plates in this area. These trusses are visible in the picture in the OP of this thread (not the crane towers)

The other location of cross bracing in the core area was on the mechanical floors. There were no exterior spandrel plates on these floors to accommodate the air intakes for the HVAC systems.

So to answer the question: was there cross bracing in the core, the answer is yes and no.

Now can we let this thread die?
 
Last edited:
But you do agree there was crossbracing. If you were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked you yes or no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom