Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
It depends on what you are calling "crossbracing."
The RMackey "Cross-Bracing" Lie
- Thread starter TruthSeeker1234
- Start date
It depends on what you are calling "crossbracing."
Contrary to popular belief, courtroom lawyers cannot require a witness to answer questions with only "yes" or "no" when neither answer would be accurate.
"There was no cross-bracing on over 90% of the floors" would be my (completely truthful, to the extent of my knowledge) answer to the question "Was there cross-bracing in the wtc towers?" in court. Whether the lawyer barked "Answer yes or no!" or not.
Respectfully,
Myriad
What do people here want to call the horizontal I-beams in the core? If they had a name, maybe they would get a mention more often.
A W Smith
Philosopher
"Drama" in the courtroom. It's on tv so it must be right. right?
You're watching law and order too much. Do you see the logical fallacy you are committing? It is called a false choice logical fallacy. Lawyers don't do that in real courtrooms.
Now that you have come out as a twoofer, and lied about your two family members you were trying to convince, Let me explain the limited amount of bracing that was in the towers and WHY it was there for the other casual readers of this thread. Simply because I already know you yourself are nothing but a troll and are not here to listen or be educated.
The towers had elevator banks that were zoned to atrium lobbies, These lobbies were a couple storys high and therefore the core section was not tied to the perimeter columns at these lobbies which would have supported the core. Not only that but immediatly above these multi story sky lobbies were machinery hoists for the elevators themselves. Therefore the cores in these sections along with the 7 story lobby at the base. had to be cross braced at these levels. Now once the perimeter floors were stripped away when the truss seats sheared during the collapse, the core no longer had the floors that provided stability. You can see this in quite a few videos where remnants of the core remain standing for several seconds, and then collapse straight down when the core columns hinge and buckle and break their connections to the columns below them. which were not even fully welded to their root.
You're watching law and order too much. Do you see the logical fallacy you are committing? It is called a false choice logical fallacy. Lawyers don't do that in real courtrooms.
Now that you have come out as a twoofer, and lied about your two family members you were trying to convince, Let me explain the limited amount of bracing that was in the towers and WHY it was there for the other casual readers of this thread. Simply because I already know you yourself are nothing but a troll and are not here to listen or be educated.
The towers had elevator banks that were zoned to atrium lobbies, These lobbies were a couple storys high and therefore the core section was not tied to the perimeter columns at these lobbies which would have supported the core. Not only that but immediatly above these multi story sky lobbies were machinery hoists for the elevators themselves. Therefore the cores in these sections along with the 7 story lobby at the base. had to be cross braced at these levels. Now once the perimeter floors were stripped away when the truss seats sheared during the collapse, the core no longer had the floors that provided stability. You can see this in quite a few videos where remnants of the core remain standing for several seconds, and then collapse straight down when the core columns hinge and buckle and break their connections to the columns below them. which were not even fully welded to their root.
Last edited:
We've remarked numerous times how the Truthers seem to resurrect even the stupidest ideas, in effect preventing any kind of learning. This zombie thread jumping back to life -- and two Truthers posting in it, nit-picking about questions that were clearly, unambiguously, permanently answered in this thread -- is proof positive.
Don't bother talking with them until they come up with an intelligent question or observation. I predict it will be a long wait. Let this thread go back to the abyss prepared for it.
Don't bother talking with them until they come up with an intelligent question or observation. I predict it will be a long wait. Let this thread go back to the abyss prepared for it.
"Cross bracing" is taken to mean diagonal bracing. There was diagonal bracing in the Twin Towers. From memory, in the lowest 3 above-ground floors, in the mechanical floors, and in the hat-truss.
The horizontal elements you are talking about are known, I believe, as 'beams', although you might want to get the ultimate truth on the terminolgy from one of the structural engineers/architects here.
You been watching LOTR again ?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
The horizontal wide-flanges are called beams, girders, purlins, joists or a myriad of other things depending upon their structural use and the geographic location where they are used. These elements all resist only vertical forces.
There are also horizontal elements that resist horizontal and vertical forces. They are part of a lateral system called moment frames. This requires that the both flanges of the beam be rigidly connected to the supporting columns. The beams in the core of WTC1&2, though massive, did not have this special type of connection. The perimeter columns were connected by fully welded spandrel plates. These plates are fully welded to the column and thus comprise a moment frame with the columns (these resisted the bulk of the lateral forces on the building).
Bracing, in this case, goes between floors on a diagonal. It resists horizontal forces (and some vertical forces based on stiffness of adjoining columns). It looks like a truss. These can be seen in the construction photos on the mechanical floors and on the bottom most floors and no others. They are used in these places because bracing is much stiffer than moment frames and help reduce the overall deflection of the building during a wind event.
Mobertermy
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 548
Are you sure lawyers don't do that ever?
I'm not a truther. I'm on the fence. Truthers have shown me some things, that if true, I can't explain away. This forum has a cultishness to it and its members have group think and attack any differing opinion.
You will of course admit that there are different levels of intelligence and intellectual honesty among the individuals on the debunker side right? Or are you all extremely intelligent, well-informed, and perfectly honest? You are aware that some debunkers dont know any facts pertaining to 911 but just accept everything the gov't tells them based on faith. You are aware that there are people that believe the gov't version 100% that also believe Saddam was responsible for 911.
It was an off-hand remark in the 9/11 Commission Report intended to help visualize the structural design for non-technical readers.
In typical Truther fashion, they took this lone bit of descriptive hyperbole as The Gospel Truth of The Official Conspiracy Theory, and have been carping about it ever since.
These two ideas are fundamentally incompatible.
It also doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Let it die.
A W Smith
Philosopher
are you aware that you quoted me and snipped out everything relavent to the topic of this thread? are you aware that truthers do that when they cannot face the truth of a statement? And try to change the topic? since you cannot or will not address the cross bracing argument lets let this thread die and you can start a new thread.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
That I understand, but obviously they complain because it wasnt hollow it was filled with the core columns.
I know there surely is a justification for describing it a hollow shaft (hyperbole or not), OR once again the NWO are unfathomably stupid, but I'm not that knowledgable in engineering so can you briefly explain?
Last edited:
To first order, the structural design of the Towers was "tube within a tube." This differs from other contemporary designs such as the Sears Tower, which is (again, to first order) a "bundled tube" design.
The inner "tube" is the core columns -- not really a tube since they're regularly spaced inside. The outer "tube" is the perimeter. In some crude analyses you can simplify these components to shells. But again, "first order" and "crude" mean exactly that. This simplification should not be taken too far.
The Truth Movement, the guys who misconstrue a PAL to NTSC video conversion as evidence that bin Laden doesn't even exist, are masters of taking things too far.
End of thread. Off topic. I shan't respond again.
The inner "tube" is the core columns -- not really a tube since they're regularly spaced inside. The outer "tube" is the perimeter. In some crude analyses you can simplify these components to shells. But again, "first order" and "crude" mean exactly that. This simplification should not be taken too far.
The Truth Movement, the guys who misconstrue a PAL to NTSC video conversion as evidence that bin Laden doesn't even exist, are masters of taking things too far.
End of thread. Off topic. I shan't respond again.
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Even the NWO show what they thought the core looked like by placing an overlay in the following videoclip from the 0:27 sec mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778# Shorter clip
longer clip....Scroll down to 'Wtc2 core took 30 seconds to....'
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgu...q=core+wtc2&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&sa=N&start=60
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778# Shorter clip
longer clip....Scroll down to 'Wtc2 core took 30 seconds to....'
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgu...q=core+wtc2&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&sa=N&start=60