The WTC cores

[beachnut]

Nice little study, Unfit. You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this? If all of the floors and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, why would the core then disintegrate a few seconds later? It makes no sense.

It will make sense if you were to read and understand all of NIST and use real experts to help you understand the structure of the WTC towers.

Take a few years to study and you will start to understand.

Some of the previous post already have supplied information that can help.

 

[Alt+F4]

You are correct, the cores survived, then fell. What could explain this?

You've already told us TS, on many threads...it was the Star Wars beam/ray.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

And Truth Seeker, I never have thought explosivers or another other CT ideas were used to bring down the cores, I just wanted some info on the subject so I must have come across as thinking otherwise.

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

You've already told us TS, on many threads...it was the Star Wars beam/ray.

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.

 

[stateofgrace]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

So can you please explain a scenario where all the floors are ripped out of the core, the core stands for a few seconds and somebody decides to set off some preplanted explosives just to finish off the job?

What do you mean appears to turn to dust? Explain this in full detail please.

How do you know the remaining core fell straight down? Please explain.

I am all ears BS.

 

[Unfit4Command]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

Keep going with your study, Unfit. Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

I am going to keep reading about the cores and the WTC's construction. There's still a lot to find, what I haven't found so far is evidence of a "star wars beam weapon", and explosives(not that you said explosives brought them down).

You keep hunting for those star wars beam weapons, Truthseeker. Hunt them down.
I have a question, what exactly do you think a "star wars beam weapon" does? Shoots up the core and destroys it? I haven't seen any of your other threads, or posts talking about the weapons.

 

[WildCat]

If not some kind of explosives, what would explain the behavior of the cores? If all the floor assemblies and perimeter sections "fell" down past the core, and there were huge 700 ft sections of the core still intact and standing, what scenario explains the fact that after standing alone for several seconds, these massively cross-braced steel lattices appeared to turn to dust and fall straight down?

They were not "cross braced" by anything but the floor trusses. Once the trusses failed, the cores could not stand for more than a few seconds.

 

[Pardalis]

Next imagine the core falling down into a "pile", then compare what you imagine to the actual pictures at ground zero. Hunt the cores, Unfit. Hunt them down. So far we've found a stub of WTC1's core, and nothing of WTC2's.

Don't imagine anything, ask professional engeneers.

 

[Horatius]

The beam weapon idea is a hypothesis to be tested.

It's been tested and found wanting.

Not that you'll ever admit it.

Unfit4, expect a lot of these sorts of posts in your future, if you decide to stand against the tide of CT ignorance.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

They were not "cross braced" by anything but the floor trusses. Once the trusses failed, the cores could not stand for more than a few seconds.

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

 

[Unfit4Command]

Unfit4Command, you said you were doing "papers" on the Pentagon and the WTC disasters, so what are your credentials? Or is it just a school paper?

ah, didn't see this post till now. It's not for, I'm not really doing them for anything, I just like being organized with my ideas so I put them into papers on my computer for possible later use. They're not professional papers or anything, but it's not like I'm going to use a bunch of BS, unreliable sources in them.

 

[WildCat]

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.

No, they weren't, and the pictures show no such thing. You're wrong again Ace.

 

[Horatius]

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

Okay, time to do some math again. Start with a thin tower about 500-1000 feet high, perpendicular to the earth. Calculate the downward force of gravity on said tower, and draw a free body diagram of all the forces on the tower. Now, angle said tower to, say, 5 degrees, and re-draw the free body diagram, resolving all forces into components along the length and across the width of the tower.

Now notice the large lateral forces being applied to a tower not designed to support lateral forces. Now explain to us why said tower would not be expected to start buckling under this load.

Not too hard to do if you're as smart as you think. Of course, this requires you to know what a free body diagram is.

 

[beachnut]

This is silly.

1. The cores were massively cross-braced. You can look at the pictures up thread.

2. Even if they weren't, and only had lateral support from the floor assemblies, they would topple over like trees. The notion that they would just give up vertical strength and fall apart when they were no longer supporting any weight, is just ludicrous.

wild cat is an order of magnitude more correct than you are TS

the core was not for lateral support, that was the sole responsibility of the exterior siding

You forgot to study for years before you reviled your level of knowledge on the core

If you had studied the NIST reports you may have some information

the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance

;you can find this from multiple sources

the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance (but you have to find a structrual expert, not a ct source to find out the truth)

 

[Axiom_Blade]

ah, didn't see this post till now. It's not for, I'm not really doing them for anything, I just like being organized with my ideas so I put them into papers on my computer for possible later use. They're not professional papers or anything, but it's not like I'm going to use a bunch of BS, unreliable sources in them.

I used to do the same thing, when I had more free time. It's great, it improves and clarifies your thinking and your writing. I really admire your respect for research and sourcing... many people just use any old crap that appears to support whatever their position is.

However, I would request that you consider posting your paper(s) on the Internet somewhere when you're done. It seems like a shame to do all that work and then not share it with anyone.

 

[Unfit4Command]

So with your beam theory TS I have a few questions for you.

-Where were the beams located?
-How exactly do you think they would work? I have a picture in my head of a big laser beam destroyed the core and I'm pretty sure some people would have seen or reported such a thing.
-Who do you think put the beams in place to destroy the core? And how did no one notice something like that?
-Why were remains of these weapons/beams never found in the rubble of the WTC's?
-Was the same thing used to bring down WTC 7? Or were the new silent explosives used in that CD?

Also, did the Towers floors actually fall the correct way because of the impact of the planes followed by the fires? Or did the US government destroy the floors through a normal controlled demolition, then leave the core to the all mighty star wars beam?

 

[beachnut]

I am going to keep reading about the cores and the WTC's construction. There's still a lot to find, what I haven't found so far is evidence of a "star wars beam weapon", and explosives(not that you said explosives brought them down).

You keep hunting for those star wars beam weapons, Truthseeker. Hunt them down.
I have a question, what exactly do you think a "star wars beam weapon" does? Shoots up the core and destroys it? I haven't seen any of your other threads, or posts talking about the weapons.

I had a question on the WTC here is what an expert said

chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

here is the letter he sent me

Keith-

NCSEA forwarded your question to me. I was the author of the document you are questioning.
You are correct that the twin towers did not have a concrete core. However, they, did have a well-defined core consisting of conventional steel framing supported by steel columns. Generally, horizontal framing in the core was not moment-resisting framing, though semi-rigid (type PR) connections were used for some of this framing. Thus, the statement that the core structure was not designed for lateral resistance.

The core framing did play a significant role in resisting collapse, however, after the aircraft impacts and initial damage sustained by these impacts. The core, ultimately, also played a significant role in the collapse. If you would like more information, you may obtain detailed reports at www.nist.gov/wtc

Regards,
Ron Hamburger

look up this guy on the internet to find possilbe source if you are allowed internet sources

else off to the library

maybe you can use info and source this guy

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

The cores not only had cross bracing, they had their own floor system.

 

[Pardalis]

After almost two hundred pages of Christophera, I'm tired of hearing about the "cores".

Could we talk about these for a change?

 

[Unfit4Command]

I used to do the same thing, when I had more free time. It's great, it improves and clarifies your thinking and your writing. I really admire your respect for research and sourcing... many people just use any old crap that appears to support whatever their position is.

However, I would request that you consider posting your paper(s) on the Internet somewhere when you're done. It seems like a shame to do all that work and then not share it with anyone.

Yeah, it's annoying when people only show sources that support their views, I usually show a source I'm against, then show other sources that prove it wrong, or at least tell both sides and let whoever reading deside which to choose.

hmm...I could post some online eventually, not sure where though. Maybe a livejournal or something.