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
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; . . ." -RMackeySo 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://forums.randi.org/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.
http://www.mymedialibrary.com/WTC/SouthTower.jpg

[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%20Picture6.jpg

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.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".

[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:mad:

[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".
:crazy:

[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]

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63865) 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.
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg
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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908927#post1908927), made September 9th of last year.

My reply (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908939#post1908939) 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 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf), 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:


I reviewed Ross's paper, and noted that on the collapse floors, treating the problem as purely vertical was an oversimplification.
You interpreted this as me claiming there was no cross-bracing on the impact floors.
In fact, there was no cross-bracing on the impact floors, as I have demonstrated here, but
that didn't matter, because I was critiquing Ross's approach, and using his assumptions. He didn't include cross-bracing.
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.
You furthermore insist there was cross-bracing on every floor.
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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1940026#post1940026), 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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64596) 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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72894), 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:

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.

[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.

[Loss Leader]

TS1234, you're back? Didn't you say something about not posting anymore? Oh, here it is:

I will have no part of this forum until one of the following two things happens: Loss Leader takes it back and apologizes, or Loss Leader is permanently banned.

Did I miss my own apology?

Okay, for the record, I absolutely, catagorically, unreservedly do NOT apologize. I believe with all my heart in my prior postings and I reaffirm them as though they were fully set forth here.

Now, TS1234, you comining back to the forum absent my apology makes you a liar. If your pants are not, in actual fact, on fire than I sincerely believe they should be. Also, I do not apologize for the quip I made in the last sentence.

And the pictures you posted show diagonal cross-bracing for the cranes during construction. They were removed when construction was completed which was good for the tenants of WTC 1 and 2, seeing as the cross-bracing was blocking the elevator shafts.

[Bell]

Now, TS1234, you comining back to the forum absent my apology makes you a liar.

Touche...

[Brainache]

My daughter is 9 years old and one of her favourite DVDs is Barbie: The Princess and The Pauper. I actually bought a copy of this DVD and have therefore given money to Truthseeker1234 (yes I checked. Ace Baker wrote the song which plays over the end credits).

I should really learn not to let my kids bully me like that.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was partly wrong, but mostly right. The crane supports were not part of the permanent structure.

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.

Mackey clearly implied that the main floor trusses were the only means of lateral support for the core columns.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I was partly wrong, but mostly right. The crane supports were not part of the permanent structure.

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.

Mackey clearly implied that the main floor trusses were the only means of lateral support for the core columns.

Unlike Architect (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11466), I am not an architect. Could you please provide a diagram, or photo with overlaid diagram, showing this cross-bracing on the core structures; and a link to some information detailing how such cross-bracing works?

[babazaroni]

Mackey clearly implied that the main floor trusses were the only means of lateral support for the core columns.

Why do you keep referring to floor trusses? These trusses linked the inner columns to the outer columns and had nothing to do with lateral support for the core except for being a part of the entire system.

Perhaps you mean the horizontal bracing these trusses were attached to?

Mackey has said several times there was diagonal bracing at key floors, such as the mechanical floor.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a truss. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss)

[DavidJames]

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.Could you provide evidence for the two claims above.

[chran]

Unlike Architect (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11466), I am not an architect. Could you please provide a diagram, or photo with overlaid diagram, showing this cross-bracing on the core structures; and a link to some information detailing how such cross-bracing works? What he said.

[uk_dave]

My central point about cross-bracing is correct: The core structures were abundantly cross-braced, horizontally and diagonally.

ermmm...I'll ask again:

Where did they put the doors?

[babazaroni]

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.


As the tops of the towers tilted, there were intact core columns and some missing core columns. The horizontal bracing at each floor level were not designed to hold the inner core stable while the tilting portion leveraged against the asymetrically damaged core. This would cause a 3d twisting which would cause catastrophic failure.

[Minadin]

Where did they put the doors?
Well, it's possible to cross brace in some structures in such a way that not every bay has / needs the bracing in it. So, you might have a series of bays in a building that looked like this:

|X| | | | |X|

Where it's just on the corners / sides, or at least not in every bay. Also, diagonal bracing can be, in practice, a little bit easier to work with as far as punching through, because it usually allows openings on at least one side. For instance, we recently had to get our structural engineers to change all their cross bracing in a major medical office building from:

| | |X|X|X|X| | |

to:

| | |/|/|\|\| | |

Just so that we could get tenants into the east half of the building. (mutters about engineers under his breath)

[Belz...]

Touche...

Actually it really could be just a case of changing one's mind, in this instance.

[Belz...]

My central point about cross-bracing is correct: The core structures were abundantly cross-braced, horizontally and diagonally.

Did you miss Mack's quote of the report on this subject ??

[Bell]

Actually it really could be just a case of changing one's mind, in this instance.

What mind? :boxedin:

[tacodaemon]

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".

Yes, you've discovered the amazing secret that the service cores of the Twin Towers had floors. In fact, I remember using the elevators and a men's room in the core of 2WTC and I didn't have to levitate across a 110-story chasm to get to them. That's quite a blistering exposé you've brought us.

[uk_dave]

Yes, you've discovered the amazing secret that the service cores of the Twin Towers had floors. In fact, I remember using the elevators and a men's room in the core of 2WTC and I didn't have to levitate across a 110-story chasm to get to them. That's quite a blistering exposé you've brought us.

The mens room was in the core? hmmmmm suspicious..... C4 in the wc pans, detonator in the cistern...... where's christophera?:eek:

[T.A.M.]

I was partly wrong, but mostly right. The crane supports were not part of the permanent structure.

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.

Mackey clearly implied that the main floor trusses were the only means of lateral support for the core columns.

The world is flat

The earth is the center of the universe

There is a sasquach

Aliens have visited earth, and taken some people into their ships

My house is haunted....

TAM:)

[Belz...]

What mind? :boxedin:

It IS just a theory, after all.

[CurtC]

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.And you are aware that horizontal bracing is not very effective at keeping columns from deflecting to the sides, right? The fact is that they can still deflect to the sides all together, and in a very tall, narrow structure would not be enough. Diagonal bracing, of which there was very little in the towers, does a good job of that. Of course it wasn't needed becuase what really kept the core columns from sideways motion was that they were held in place by the perimeter columns, connected via the floor trusses.

[rwguinn]

And you are aware that horizontal bracing is not very effective at keeping columns from deflecting to the sides, right? The fact is that they can still deflect to the sides all together, and in a very tall, narrow structure would not be enough. Diagonal bracing, of which there was very little in the towers, does a good job of that. Of course it wasn't needed becuase what really kept the core columns from sideways motion was that they were held in place by the perimeter columns, connected via the floor trusses.

To be more concise:
Diagonal bracing is effective in resisting deflections only for in-plane forces. Out-of-plane forces result in out-of-plane bending.
By the way things work, it does not take much (relatively speaking) to prevent column buckling if the lateral forces are small when compared to the area moment of inertia.
at 200 feet per side, the area moment was huge! ((12*200)^4/12)(in^4) The entire purpose of the floor was to tie the inner and outer columns together, making the building one huge beam. The outside walls were the shear panels making the sides work together.

[Architect]

I was partly wrong, but mostly right. The crane supports were not part of the permanent structure.

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.


Source? Kind of bracing, location, and purpose?

[jhunter1163]

An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:


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

[Architect]

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!

[uk_dave]

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!

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?)

[JimBenArm]

An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:

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!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Unlike Architect (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11466), I am not an architect. Could you please provide a diagram, or photo with overlaid diagram, showing this cross-bracing on the core structures; and a link to some information detailing how such cross-bracing works?
*taps foot impatiently*

[jhunter1163]

Sorry. I left my left brain run wild for a minute there.

[Loss Leader]

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!

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.

[TjW]

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.

So, basically, no down side?

[R.Mackey]

An architect and a NASA scientist debating architecture and fluid dynamics with a musician. Hmmmm... well, I know who my money's on... :rolleyes:
This all reminds me of Paul Simon's appearance on Saturday Night Live back in the day, where he played one-on-one basketball (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75bupdate.phtml) 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:

[Mobyseven]

Could you provide evidence for the two claims above.

Waiting, TS1234...

[BadBoy]

Now, listen carefully, Mr. Baker:

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)

[calebprime]

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.

[twinstead]

Waiting, TS1234...

Holy thread resurrection, Batman. This sure has been a long wait...

[Furcifer]

It was 2009 when i went to bed...

[Alferd_Packer]

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?

[Mobertermy]

Alfred Packer, if someone said there was no crossbracing they would be lying then right?

[Alferd_Packer]

Alfred Packer, if someone said there was no crossbracing they would be lying then right?

Yes and no.

[Mobertermy]

But you do agree there was crossbracing. If you were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked you yes or no.

[Travis]

But you do agree there was crossbracing. If you were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked you yes or no.

It depends on what you are calling "crossbracing."

[Myriad]

But you do agree there was crossbracing. If you were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked you yes or no.


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

[bardamu]

It depends on what you are calling "crossbracing."

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]

But you do agree there was crossbracing. If you were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked you yes or no.


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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). 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.

[R.Mackey]

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.

[GlennB]

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.

"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.

[GlennB]

Let this thread go back to the abyss prepared for it.

You been watching LOTR again ?

[Newtons Bit]

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.

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.

[Edx]

Ok this is an old question but what is deal behind the "hollow shaft" business.

[Mobertermy]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Lawyers don't do that in real courtrooms.



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.

[R.Mackey]

Ok this is an old question but what is deal behind the "hollow shaft" business.

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.

[R.Mackey]

You are aware that there are people that believe the gov't version 100% that also believe Saddam was responsible for 911.

These two ideas are fundamentally incompatible.

It also doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Let it die.

[A W Smith]

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.


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]

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.

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?

[R.Mackey]

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.

[Edx]

Ok I think I get it thnx!

[Alferd_Packer]

This differs from other contemporary designs such as the Sears Tower, which is (again, to first order) a "bundled tube" design.


I'll never call it the Willis Tower, either.

[carlitos]

Not even if you were in a courtroom if a lawyer asked you "Is it called the Willis Tower, yes or no?"
:)

[twinstead]

The thread actually should have been titled The RMackey Cross-Bracing "Lie".

[bill smith]

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?imgurl=http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/365696/2648301/4/catalog_item5/0/1/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.metacafe.com/channels/aussiestorm/&usg=__BoOwZ5fWkMwSGAzPH0eY5ZZFimA=&h=89&w=136&sz=4&hl=en&start=69&tbnid=L-8ToLjqczH2lM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcore%2Bwtc2%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26h l%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D60

[Hokulele]

The hell?

Zombie thread!!

*Flees*

[ElMondoHummus]

Not even if you were in a courtroom if a lawyer asked you "Is it called the Willis Tower, yes or no?"
:)

I don't know about Alferd, but I would grit my teeth, grind out a "Not by me!", and suck up whatever contempt-of-court charges I'd get for doing that. :D

Sears Tower, dammit! Sears Tower! I don't care who bought it recently!

[carlitos]

I live in Chicago, and there was some momentum for calling it "The Big Willie" but it didn't last long. People here still call the Macy's on State St. "Marshall Fields" and US Cellular Field "Sox Park" or "Comiskey" so it should take a few decades to catch on. Like right around when their lease is up.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I don't see anything suspicious about those crane supports. The first post on this thread is a strawman arguement!

[TS-]

Sorry to post, but, like always, there's a communication problem here.
I'm not a truther. I'm on the fence. Truthers have shown me some things, that if true, I can't explain away.
Understand that you're still here peddling conspiracy theories as an option. It would be like saying that you didn't know if the holocaust happened or if you were on the fence. "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but..."

This forum has a cultishness to it and its members have group think and attack any differing opinion.


You're not understanding the context of conspiracy theories in this subforum. Essentially none of them are new, so you're seeing these theories be pitched at people who've been hearing them for several years now, and were probably debunked immediately. You aren't seeing "groupthink" (what a convenient word to label people who don't agree with you), you are seeing a deep skepticism. The antidote for this would be actual evidence, which conspiracy theorists, the 9/11 variety in particular, are always very short on. The confrontations you see generally surround the lack of evidence. Because there's a lot of "I'm just asking questions," a lot of throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

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?
This is a weird statement. Not all math teachers or professional wrestlers are equal either, what is your point?

It seems to me like you're looking for excuses to dismiss people's opinions, instead of addressing what they're actually saying.

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.
Aside from the logical inconsistency regarding your last sentence that's already been pointed out, it seems here again that you're looking for reasons to dismiss peoples' opinions outright. You are making several assumptions which have no basis, particularly as it pertains to this forum, moreso this subforum.

What makes you think anything in that last paragraph applies to anyone here? Why are you assuming that people who disagree with you are ignorant? It is a very self-serving assumption, and will not help you become more informed about anything, ever. 9/11 or otherwise.