IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc , nist report , 911 conspiracy theory , wtc core

Reply
Old 9th November 2006, 02:51 PM   #1
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
The WTC cores

Lately I've been trying to find some info about the WTC cores since I've been hearing a lot of stuff from the Truth Movement about how they should have remained standing, and even should have possibly held the rest of the building up.

I need to know more about the construction of them. I've found some stuff like these diagrams:






And this one that shows the collapse sequence but doesn't really explain the collapse of the core:


I've also noticed a few things after watching several videos about the collapses and seeing several pictures. It almost looks like the core of the building doesn't collapse until the building passes the stronger areas of the building(I can't remember what they're called, but the 2 areas on the building that are stronger than the rest). Is that area required to hold the core up?

Like look at these photos:
South Tower core;

sn taken from this video-http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=Dramatic+video+evidence&hl=e n

In the beginning of the collapse of the North Tower I saw this:

It seems a little too small, and moveable to be a part of the core, but I'm pretty sure it isn't just smoke and debris moving around.
Here's a slow motion version where you can see it really well:


This is another photo I found which appears to possibly be the core of the South Tower still standing after the collapse:

The only problem is that I've never found any other photos like it, and haven't been able to find any videos that show it either.

And the core of the North Tower still standing is a pretty common picture:


And this is what's left of one of the cores, I'm not sure which it is yet:


So far I haven't been able to find anything dedicated to the collapse of the core, or giving any major explainations for it. AHHH!! I just don't have a lot of info about the core right now, so if anyone can tell me, or show me anything about them, please do.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 02:57 PM   #2
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
Read the NIST report.
firecoins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:03 PM   #3
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
isnt christophera our resident core expert? lol
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:12 PM   #4
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Hi, Unfit. Where have you looked for information about the tower cores?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:33 PM   #5
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Hi, Unfit. Where have you looked for information about the tower cores?
hmmm...several places. I'm looking through some of the NIST report right now, but I HATE pdf files, they work so horribly on my computer. Oh well guess I'll have to deal with it unless someone knows of somewhere I can download the report and read it in Word or something.

Anyways, I've mostly just seen various videos on youtube and google video, read a few things from CT and debunking websites, various threads on forums(both CT and debunking sites).
The reason I made this thread is just to see what other people have found, I've barely found anything because I don't really know where to look aside from the NIST report now. Anything else? debunking911.com talks about the core a little, but not enough for me to actually argue a point with my several CT friends, or at least prepare for a possible argument at school which looks more and more likely of happening everyday.

I need it all! haha. If that helps...I plan on putting what I find about the core together into a paper once I finish my one about the Pentagon.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:35 PM   #6
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Ok I'll have a stab at this. I'm sure if I am wrong I will be quickly corrected.

From my understanding of the construction of the building of the Towers there were three main elements or parts which ever way you want to call them.
There was the central steel support cores, the external steel superstructure and the floors that were braced between the two of them.

When they constructed the Towers they built up part of the core, built up part of the steel super structure and then added a floor that braced the two together. They then continued, core, external super structure, floor. This continued all the way up.

The floors simply braced the core and the external steel super structure together. They were reinforced with concrete. I could be wrong on this one but I am also led to believe that the floors weighted the same, i.e. floor 10 weighted the same as floor 100. They were simply strapped to the core, which took the weight and in turn to the external steel superstructure.

So finally you have a massive steel building. The core and the external steel superstructure are literally taking the weight of the floors but the floors are also acting to brace it al together. So would it not make perfect sense that if the floors are suddenly and violent removed then the entire building is compromised?

Again this is simply how I see things unfolding as the massive weights above the damaged sections suddenly start to drop. It would drop initially on the core, the floors and the external superstructure. Obviously the core will offer up the most resistance and the weight, which is not solid but be deflected onto the floor spaces. It will to a point be contained within the external steel superstructures and continues falling on the floor spaces. They floors are not designed to take this and simply collapse. This collapse literally rips the floors from the core and the steel super structure.

It continues down through the floors spaces, ripping each floor from the core and the steel superstructure. The steel super structure is made up of many pieces and simply gets blown away by the violent destruction of the floors. This continues right down each Tower, floor after floor is simply ripped away.

Until the floors and the superstructure are no more. Parts of the core go with it and some parts remain standing momentarily until it finally collapses under the now unsupported weight.

Hey this is just my opinion, I’m sure I could well be wrong but it makes more sense than bombs missiles and secret death squads.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:42 PM   #7
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Unfit4Command View Post
I need to know more about the construction of them. I've found some stuff like these diagrams:




This information is wrong on a few facts, you have to sort out the misinformation from CT sites and other sites who have it wrong.

There is no concrete core. I have see this diagram and it misleads a lot of people. Poor research by a journalist or other source.

Like spelling a name wrong, they defined the WTC wrong!
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:46 PM   #8
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
This information is wrong on a few facts, you have to sort out the misinformation from CT sites and other sites who have it wrong.

There is no concrete core. I have see this diagram and it misleads a lot of people. Poor research by a journalist or other source.

Like spelling a name wrong, they defined the WTC wrong!
So the core is just made out of steel? ah, that's good to know.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:48 PM   #9
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
An expert in structures said this about the core:

Quote:
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
The technical guys would say the load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior core would carry only gravity loads.

The core does not handle lateral loads very well.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 03:49 PM   #10
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Unfit4Command View Post
hmmm...several places. I'm looking through some of the NIST report right now, but I HATE pdf files, they work so horribly on my computer. Oh well guess I'll have to deal with it unless someone knows of somewhere I can download the report and read it in Word or something.

Anyways, I've mostly just seen various videos on youtube and google video, read a few things from CT and debunking websites, various threads on forums(both CT and debunking sites).
The reason I made this thread is just to see what other people have found, I've barely found anything because I don't really know where to look aside from the NIST report now. Anything else? debunking911.com talks about the core a little, but not enough for me to actually argue a point with my several CT friends, or at least prepare for a possible argument at school which looks more and more likely of happening everyday.

I need it all! haha. If that helps...I plan on putting what I find about the core together into a paper once I finish my one about the Pentagon.
Well, you come across as a complete ass. But since you don't like words, but like pictures, here are some that I hope will be helpful.










__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:01 PM   #11
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Well, you come across as a complete ass. But since you don't like words, but like pictures, here are some that I hope will be helpful.
How do I "come across as a complete ass"? I like both words and pictures, just the NIST report doesn't work well on my computer so it might take a while to read. And I'm pretty sure I like words considering the fact that I read through your whole WTC 7 paper, and the Loose Change guide more than once.

So...sorry for asking a few questions? Sorry for pdf files not working well on my computer? Sorry for wanting as much info about the cores as I can get? Sorry for wanting to be prepared for any possible arguments with CTs? Sorry for planning on writing a paper about the cores? Sorry for writting one about the Pentagon? There are just about apologized for everything I said in my previous post and I don't really know I did to be called a "complete ass" or come across as one, but oh well. Think whatever you want, either way, I'm on your side on the 9/11 issue.

And thanks for the pictures, I have never seen some of them before, they're greatly appreciated

Last edited by Unfit4Command; 9th November 2006 at 04:05 PM.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:05 PM   #12
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post

The floors simply braced the core and the external steel super structure together. They were reinforced with concrete.
I believe that the floors were essentially steel pans which were filled with concrete. The purpose of the concrete is not to reinforce the steel, but to deaden sound. It is correct that there was no concrete core surrounding the steel columns; in fact that is one of the improvements that Silverstein has added to the new WTC-7 building (in addition to extra-wide staircases and extraordinary fireproofing of the structural steel).
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:21 PM   #13
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
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?

Last edited by Pardalis; 9th November 2006 at 04:29 PM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:29 PM   #14
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I believe that the floors were essentially steel pans which were filled with concrete. The purpose of the concrete is not to reinforce the steel, but to deaden sound. It is correct that there was no concrete core surrounding the steel columns; in fact that is one of the improvements that Silverstein has added to the new WTC-7 building (in addition to extra-wide staircases and extraordinary fireproofing of the structural steel).
Thanks for that, I had assumed the concrete was there for reinforcement.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 9th November 2006 at 04:32 PM.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:32 PM   #15
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
Goodaye unfit,

stick to your research, its good for the mind, but be careful of accepting any information from CT sites on face value. These sites and there calculations have been shown to be consistantly wrong or misrepresented and according to the scientific community, completely wrong. You probably already know this anyway.

You have met a bit of hostility due to the opening post, lots of big pictures and questions which is pretty much how a lot of the CT'ists work. Take it as a grain of salt and for whatever questions you have, search the forums rather then just post a question as you will find that very much every physical arguement in favour of the conspiracy has been shown to be completely wrong.

The only thing left is to find vague coincidences in speeches or quotes from articles as evidence which is sadly a waste of time.

This is why you may be met with hostility as its like a broken record!

Be vigilant in the research and as I said, be careful on your sources. Most of the CT can be debunked by primary school science.

Welcome to the forums
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:40 PM   #16
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
I agree with Hellaeon. I might have been myself a little blunt in my last post.

But if you are doing papers that are intended for the net, please use extreme caution and be sure to do a thorough and proper research. This is an extremely important issue, that should be dealt with respect and seriousness.

Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:47 PM   #17
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
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.

Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 9th November 2006 at 04:50 PM.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:49 PM   #18
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
I should add, the arguements have not only been shown to be completely wrong, but in numerous ways, numerous times!
hellaeon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:50 PM   #19
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
It makes no sense.
Yeah, like if the controlled demolitions theory made sense...
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 04:59 PM   #20
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by hellaeon View Post
Goodaye unfit,

stick to your research, its good for the mind, but be careful of accepting any information from CT sites on face value. These sites and there calculations have been shown to be consistantly wrong or misrepresented and according to the scientific community, completely wrong. You probably already know this anyway.

You have met a bit of hostility due to the opening post, lots of big pictures and questions which is pretty much how a lot of the CT'ists work. Take it as a grain of salt and for whatever questions you have, search the forums rather then just post a question as you will find that very much every physical arguement in favour of the conspiracy has been shown to be completely wrong.

The only thing left is to find vague coincidences in speeches or quotes from articles as evidence which is sadly a waste of time.

This is why you may be met with hostility as its like a broken record!

Be vigilant in the research and as I said, be careful on your sources. Most of the CT can be debunked by primary school science.

Welcome to the forums
Thanks for the info, and yeah I'm always careful of accepting research from any site, whether it's from a CT site or not.

Yeah, I guess a lot of pictures and questions do seem CTish...Oh well. I still have a little getting used to this forum.

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.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:04 PM   #21
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:06 PM   #22
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:07 PM   #23
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Unfit4Command View Post

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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:08 PM   #24
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
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.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:14 PM   #25
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:15 PM   #26
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:15 PM   #27
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:15 PM   #28
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:17 PM   #29
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:21 PM   #30
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:26 PM   #31
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
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.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:28 PM   #32
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:30 PM   #33
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:32 PM   #34
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
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)
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:34 PM   #35
Axiom_Blade
Guest
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Unfit4Command View Post
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.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:39 PM   #36
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
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?
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:42 PM   #37
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Unfit4Command View Post
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:49 PM   #38
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
The cores not only had cross bracing, they had their own floor system.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:55 PM   #39
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
After almost two hundred pages of Christophera, I'm tired of hearing about the "cores".

Could we talk about these for a change?

Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2006, 05:56 PM   #40
Unfit4Command
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
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.
Unfit4Command is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.