47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor

mtm1963 · Jan 17, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Is the government able to prove IT's case, say against bin laden, in a court of law???

The answer to that is NO. Or else, you could go to the FBI most wanted list and see 9-11 as a charge against him.

you have had 8 plus years to prove this case.

you haven't done so yet.

mtm1963

Zinc Route · Jan 17, 2010

creativedreams said:
LOL....hilarious!:lol:

Some people are just too low on the intelligence curve to comprehened technical evidence.

Don't those guys have an O.J. Simpson trial somewhere to be a juror at?

*** Many Technical people Hasve Zero Common sense. I worked for a "Brilliant" tech guy for 12 years. He was ultra suspicous but couldn't see the obvious in front of him. He once interviewed a woman for employment where he did 95% of the talking . It turned out for a service position she could barely speak English:shock:

*** He believed in multilayered conspiracies and had a pile of Crap always on his desk. He had NO understanding of people.

BmanMcfly · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
you have had 8 plus years to prove this case.

you haven't done so yet.

mtm1963

There is a such thing as 'stockholme syndrome'.

also, I can't control when people plug their ears and close their eyes and start singing 'lalalalala I can't hear you'.

The evidence is ALL there, yet there's still no justice.

mtm1963 · Jan 17, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
There is a such thing as 'stockholme syndrome'.

also, I can't control when people plug their ears and close their eyes and start singing 'lalalalala I can't hear you'.

The evidence is ALL there, yet there's still no justice.

evidence? :rofl

if it were there, you would have an argument/case. it isn't, you don't.

mtm1963

BmanMcfly · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
evidence? :rofl

if it were there, you would have an argument/case. it isn't, you don't.

mtm1963

ok... tell me, are you just asking so you can make a point, or do you really want to know??

It's clear by your posting that you just want to take any statement and try to turn it into an attack... not the type of attitude that would lead to any type of useful discussion.

I might be long-winded in many of my answers, but not interested in wasting time pointing to evidence for you to simply deny it's existance or to have that used as some sort of attack.

Take I_gaze_at_blue, she at least has shown an interest in discussion... you're not interested in discussion... when you are come back and we'll talk.

creativedreams · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
evidence? :rofl

if it were there, you would have an argument/case. it isn't, you don't.

mtm1963

So you're asking why the suspects don't investigate themselves?:doh:doh

Anyways...

James Peter Leritz, B.Arch, M.Arch – Licensed Architect, State of California. 30 years experience as an Architect and Urban Designer in San Francisco and Denver. Former Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Illinois, Champaign. Former Assistant Professor, College of Environmental Design, University of Colorado, Boulder.

"At 1.8 million square feet, WTC 7 was possibly larger than any building on the West Coast. Bank of America (1.4 million sf) and the Transamerica Pyramid (.5 million sf), the two highest buildings in San Francisco, are together only slightly greater in area.

Few Americans know that WTC 7 collapsed, even fewer know how big it was. I have read that its collapse was shown only one time on television; in its documentaries about the WTC collapse, PBS not only didn't explain the collapse of WTC7 but never even mentioned the collapse of a third building, because doing so would have undermined their conclusion that planes and jet fuel were responsible for the collapses.

Much evidence exists of explosions throughout the WTC buildings. Persistent pools of 2000 degree metal can only be explained by the presence of thermite/thermate, used in planned demolitions. Squibs, puffs of smoke characteristic of planned demolitions, can be clearly seen in advance of the collapses.

The official story does not explain the collapse of WTC7 or the collapse of the cores of WTC 1 and 2. There is just one explanation for the evidence associated with these collapses: demolition by expertly planned and placed explosives."

Kerry Lewis McCarthy, B.Arch – Licensed Architect, State of Oregon. Experienced with high-rise steel frame structures, including building-forensic, some steel frame but mostly concrete. Studied WTC's design, structure and construction at university. Over 30 years experience.

"Very hard to understand the 'complete' lack of concrete rubble in the debris field. Even had the basements filled with concrete topping slab debris. There should have been a stack of jumbled building elements about 9 more stories above grade. The core columns were fully welded yet none were longer than 40 ft (max trucking length). This event as portrayed by the NIST Report totally messes with my understanding of how buildings behave. I haven't been able to reconcile the promoted theory of collapse with the way I know buildings to behave."

creativedreams · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
can you guys prove your case in a court of law?

mtm1963

Usually when a horrible murder is committed the first to be ruled out as suspects in the investigation are the people closest to them and supposed to love them....this does not happen when it comes to events where the government is involved....

In fact there is even propaganda now to paste anyone that questions the government as something far different than an average American such as kooks, etc.....just for asking questions and asking for a new investigation.

America has evolved to something far different from when it was founded.

creativedreams · Jan 17, 2010

Zinc Route said:
*** Many Technical people Hasve Zero Common sense. I worked for a "Brilliant" tech guy for 12 years. He was ultra suspicous but couldn't see the obvious in front of him. He once interviewed a woman for employment where he did 95% of the talking . It turned out for a service position she could barely speak English:shock:

*** He believed in multilayered conspiracies and had a pile of Crap always on his desk. He had NO understanding of people.

He probably just had a higher I.Q. than you which is what it may take to see and understand the big picture and how this all fits in...

mtm1963 · Jan 17, 2010

CD you have 5 or 6 threads about 9/11. why?

can't get your argument/case across?

there a reason why these threads are in the Conspiracy Theories forum. :lol:

all the arguments have been gone over time and time again on both sides of the argument. you know this is true.

these threads are pointless.

mtm1963

Zinc Route · Jan 17, 2010

***** Did I mention that he once believed a story about Radiaton being sent thru walls as an instrument of attempted murder - was terrified of Microwave Ovens and thout AIDS could be contracted by someone sweating in a crowded elevator ???

creativedreams · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
these threads are pointless.

mtm1963

Yes they are pointless on getting a new investigation...

At least it gets verified facts and information out there so a few people may wake up and see what is going on in the big picture.

mtm1963 · Jan 17, 2010

creativedreams said:
Yes they are pointless on getting a new investigation...

At least it gets verified facts and information out there so a few people may wake up and see what is going on in the big picture.

the other side has their verified facts and information too.

mtm1963

Zinc Route · Jan 17, 2010

****** Your version a the "Big Picture" is a consensus among those who have a degree of immaturity despite their constantly putting out a stream of techno crap to the point it would gag a hippo. You are not interested in clearing up anything.

BmanMcfly · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
the other side has their verified facts and information too.

mtm1963

Funny thing about that... those that defend the official version seem to have no qualms about arguing points AGAINST the official version in an attempt to defend it...

creativedreams · Jan 17, 2010

mtm1963 said:
the other side has their verified facts and information too.

mtm1963

Yes and I encourage you to do your own research with an open mind and decide after you truly looked into it.

That being said...yes there is a lot of weird theories out there to filter through to get to the core verifiable facts...

mtm1963 · Jan 17, 2010

creativedreams said:
Yes and I encourage you to do your own research with an open mind and decide after you truly looked into it.

That being said...yes there is a lot of weird theories out there to filter through to get to the core verifiable facts...

i joined my first political forum in 2003. i have been reading about the subject since.

i'm not on your side of the argument and neither are most people.

mtm1963

creativedreams · Jan 18, 2010

mtm1963 said:
i joined my first political forum in 2003. i have been reading about the subject since.

i'm not on your side of the argument and neither are most people.

mtm1963

As it stands right now......close to 40% of all Americans ARE on my side and I venture to say the number would be much higher if more actually looked into it.

Polls have shown that the numbers are much higher yet in many other countries of the world that ARE on my side.

My side is average Averican citizens who want a new investigation because there are many descrepencies in the "official story" for the manipulating event of 9/11.

What is sad is this country has evolved to something far different from when it was founded. Now anyone who questions their government has propaganda against them which is to paste any citizen that questions the "official story" spoonfed to them. Anyone that questions information that comes directly from the rulers has an avalanche of propaganda against them to paste them as kooks, etc just for wanting a new investigation.

That being said here is 100% Proof We'll Never Get the Truth and Indisputable Massive Government Corruption

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ"]YouTube- How to create an Angry American[/ame]

Zinc Route · Jan 18, 2010

creativedreams said:
As it stands right now......close to 40% of all Americans ARE on my side and I venture to say the number would be much higher if more actually looked into it.

Polls have shown that the numbers are much higher yet in many other countries of the world that ARE on my side.

My side is average Averican citizens who want a new investigation because there are many descrepencies in the "official story" for the manipulating event of 9/11.

What is sad is this country has evolved to something far different from when it was founded. Now anyone who questions their government has propaganda against them which is to paste any citizen that questions the "official story" spoonfed to them. Anyone that questions information that comes directly from the rulers has an avalanche of propaganda against them to paste them as kooks, etc just for wanting a new investigation.

That being said here is 100% Proof We'll Never Get the Truth and Indisputable Massive Government Corruption

YouTube- How to create an Angry American

****** YOU throwing out the figure 40% is a massive exaggeration and you surely know it. For that to be close to true than that percentage would have to agree (or suspect ) that the Twin Towers were wired days in advance by unknown people - as you guys contend - or that no plane struck the Pentagon - as you guys contend - or that the US Government had a direct hand in it - or the Mossad - as YOU guys contend.

**** Obviously no way 40% believes that stuff and ALSO those using the 1933 Reichstag fire as some comparison are being far from honest. They are only inflating their own egos - to make themselves out to oppose a real dangerous Evil. This is patently absurd.

**** None of the Fruitcake new Investigations various Nutcases are calling for will ever occur because despite certain doubts most will never believe the absurd BS you guys put out - like in NEVER 100% because common sense dictates that it's either a case of a lack of integrity or a certain Mental instability.

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

creativedreams said:
I just posted facts and you guys deny it with no research or supporting facts for your opinions......

The word Denial sounds dumb to say but when posting indisputable facts I come across many forms of it......

Interesting reading:
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myth - Plane Impact
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 18, 2010

Skateguy said:
Talking around the 47 Columns, and to keep focusing on the floors, will answer nothing. Do people really feel the floors some how hold up the buildings? Because they don't. The floors are simply attached to the support columns, by beams and fasteners.Those or what gave way, allowing the floors to fall. But nothing melted those central support columns.--- The frame work of the buildings hold up the floors, not the other way around. Change the way you are looking at this, and you'll have to admit this is correct. Every single floor could be removed, and the central core columns, and the outer support walls, would still be standing there. Vertical beams are added to the support columns, to hold up the floors. ---Man this just seems so obvious, and I'm not even all that smart.

Sorry Skateguy but you are just wrong here ...

First of all let's talk about these 47 columns you like to keep banging on about ... WHICH 47 columns ???

Or are you asserting that the entire tower had ONLY 47 columns running from bedrock to roofline in one continuous length ???

You need to clarify ...

For it is my understanding that there were 47 core columns on EACH floor, 110 floors ... that makes 5170 colums.

So WHICH particular 47 are you talking about ???

The entire building got its RIGIDITY from its internal floors supporting the external walls ... without that BRACING effect the outer walls would be SUBJECT to wind-load WITHOUT anything to help it resist.

The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.

Don't forget also that the TRUSSES which spanned BETWEEN the core and the outside walls HAD to be connected as they TIED the two TOGETHER !!!

The outer walls were NOT designed as free-standing structures like a chimmney stack ... so NO-ONE except a complete moron would think it was the floors that "held up the building".

The floors TIED the two tubes together !!!

DR. TIM WILKINSON ... Lecturer in Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney in Australia

"The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards "

Same for the inner core, it was also NOT designed as a free-standing structure !!!

I think you are being misled by the tube-within-tube description of the Towers and no, the floors were NOT just simply "attached" to the support columns ... they were an INTEGRAL part to the entire load and structure.

Although, they were a tube-within-tube structure, they got RIGIDITY from the bracing of the floors ... and WITHOUT that rigidity and stability from being tied together ... one/other/both could definately fall !!!

So, when the floors began to fail ... there was nothing left for the outer walls to do on those areas except to buckle.

And the inner core had then been RIPPED away from support within itself ... it was designed to take ALMOST the whole buildings gravity load ... so once that load started moving it gotta come down !!!

Also, where do you get this stuff that those core columns "melted" ... since when has steel had to melt into gloop to fail !!!

As I mentioned before Skateguy ... if you would be prepared to do my little challenge it would be much more instructive and quicker way to have all these answered.

With your previous work contacts perhaps you could seek out relevent professionals and ask them.

Go to your local University or centre of advanced learning, find a professor of engineering or arcitecture (or both) and present your findings and understanding to them ... see if they hold up !!!

Will you do it ... if not why not ???

There is a place to seek the truth ... it is in the form of facts !!!

So you must be able to explain WHY you are not interested in their learned and academic expertise WITHIN the relevent spheres !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 18, 2010

creativedreams said:
As it stands right now......close to 40% of all Americans ARE on my side and I venture to say the number would be much higher if more actually looked into it.

Polls have shown that the numbers are much higher yet in many other countries of the world that ARE on my side.

creative, PROVE your claim of more than 40% support in Europe.

I could make it the world ... but let's stick to Europe, will be easier for you that way !!!

PROVE SUPPORT IN EUROPE OF GREATER THEN 40% !!!

I guess as usual you will quote one of your stock little phrases and move on to another thread, but at least have the courage of your conviction to stick to ONE point and PROVE IT !!!

SHOW these "polls" then ... or are they just the same OLD ones you used before ...

Suspect so !!!

NON SUPPORT IN EUROPE

Here is a pan-Europe forum ...

911truth.eu • Index page

From across the vastness of Europe they have the truly astounding support of just ONLY 317 members ... and the absurdly stupendouns feat of having the most ever online users at the phenomenal number of ten !!!

TEN ... ROFLMFAO !!!

Their tagline is

"The Movement is Growing " ... :rofl

Right here is a list of Twoof sites in Europe ... there are 133 links on the page ...

Of which only some are still active (as links) with the rest either having has ZERO traffic, expired domains or dead links.

Yup ... the movement is definately growing !!!

Czech site ... last item dated 8th June 2007 ...

H?adanie pravdy o 11. septembri 2001

Slovak site ... expired.

Dutch site ... forbidden notice.

Dutch site ... last item dated 12th July 2009

Onderzoek 911

Dutch site ... expired.

pn.nl - internet toegang, hosting en webdesign

Dutch/English site ... moved away from 9/11 stuff.

DeepJournal - the news behind the news

Dutch site ... no updates since 22nd June 2006.

Dutch site ... more anti-war than 9/11 related and small personal blog ... blogs aren't facts !!!

Johnito Magazine

Dutch site ... dead link.

http://eqgen.nl/aanslagen911

Dutch site ... moved away from 9/11 stuff.

Zapruder Inc. - De gevaarlijkste website van Nederland

Begium site ... forum closed due to non-traffic ... wee hint, no traffic = no interest !!!

9/11 Belgium

Now, I could go on ... but you get the general picture

NO SUPPORT IN EUROPE ... FACT.

Now at least have the decency and HONESTY to stop repeating this false claim, at least have that ... if not then you are the fraud we all know you to be !!!

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 18, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Those planes also hit the building 'off-center' (as can be viewed by the floorplan of damaged columns... so, the removed fire retardant could ONLY have accounted for less then half of the insulation being removed on any one floor.. so, the flames would have only been able to heat that section of the buildings steel. Then, only a portion of the metal would have been hot enough to sag and fail...

So, untill someone can explain how that assymetrical damage led to a symmetrical collapse with virtually no resistance, amouns to a little less then a half-arsed explanation.

Please explain how a symmetrical collapse can leave large portions of the structure visibly intact during collapse ???

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

My personal thought are, that many Good Loyal Americans feel that to even question the official report is some how Unpatriotic. ---and I'm cool with that. ---But the truth plays no favorites.

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Sorry Skateguy but you are just wrong here ...

First of all let's talk about these 47 columns you like to keep banging on about ... WHICH 47 columns ???

Or are you asserting that the entire tower had ONLY 47 columns running from bedrock to roofline in one continuous length ???

You need to clarify ...

For it is my understanding that there were 47 core columns on EACH floor, 110 floors ... that makes 5170 colums.

So WHICH particular 47 are you talking about ???

The entire building got its RIGIDITY from its internal floors supporting the external walls ... without that BRACING effect the outer walls would be SUBJECT to wind-load WITHOUT anything to help it resist.

Don't forget also that the TRUSSES which spanned BETWEEN the core and the outside walls HAD to be connected as they TIED the two TOGETHER !!!

The outer walls were NOT designed as free-standing structures like a chimmney stack ... so NO-ONE except a complete moron would think it was the floors that "held up the building".

The floors TIED the two tubes together !!!

Same for the inner core, it was also NOT designed as a free-standing structure !!!

I think you are being misled by the tube-within-tube description of the Towers and no, the floors were NOT just simply "attached" to the support columns ... they were an INTEGRAL part to the entire load and structure.

Although, they were a tube-within-tube structure, they got RIGIDITY from the bracing of the floors ... and WITHOUT that rigidity and stability from being tied together ... one/other/both could definately fall !!!

So, when the floors began to fail ... there was nothing left for the outer walls to do on those areas except to buckle.

And the inner core had then been RIPPED away from support within itself ... it was designed to take ALMOST the whole buildings gravity load ... so once that load started moving it gotta come down !!!

Also, where do you get this stuff that those core columns "melted" ... since when has steel had to melt into gloop to fail !!!

As I mentioned before Skateguy ... if you would be prepared to do my little challenge it would be much more instructive and quicker way to have all these answered.

With your previous work contacts perhaps you could seek out relevent professionals and ask them.

Go to your local University or centre of advanced learning, find a professor of engineering or arcitecture (or both) and present your findings and understanding to them ... see if they hold up !!!

Will you do it ... if not why not ???

There is a place to seek the truth ... it is in the form of facts !!!

So you must be able to explain WHY you are not interested in their learned and academic expertise WITHIN the relevent spheres !!!

Beep--wrong answer---Floors are never part of the support structure, but rather held up by the support structure. A table top, does not hold up it's legs.The legs hold up the table top. (see how this works?) That is why floors can be made of poured concrete, floor after floor. What do you think is holding up that poured concrete while it sets up?? You need to put away the legos, and get an erector set. the 47 Columns connected from the bed rock to the top of the building. They were not however just one long column, but rather lengths fastened together just as in any other metal structure. From buildings to Bridges.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 18, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Those planes also hit the building 'off-center' (as can be viewed by the floorplan of damaged columns... so, the removed fire retardant could ONLY have accounted for less then half of the insulation being removed on any one floor.. so, the flames would have only been able to heat that section of the buildings steel. Then, only a portion of the metal would have been hot enough to sag and fail...

Bman, you havent really thought this through.

Now I understand what you are saying about maybe only half the fire-retardant coating being knocked off by impact damage.

But how would that "prevent" heat from travelling through the exposed metal to the still-covered metal ???

Heat, being energy, will STILL travel, it won't magically just stop at the covered part, for it to remain cold !!!

That HEAT will still transfer through the metal and the fire-retardant will KEEP it insulated, so the steel BENEATH the coating will get heated too, although slower.

Fire-retardant coatings are designed to place a physical BARRIER between the object and an outside source of fire.

But if that barrier is then removed at any part ... that HEAT ENERGY to still get through, by CONDUCTION, and the insulating properties will then PREVENT that heat escaping !!!

Metals usually EXPAND when heated ... so that expansion could then have knocked off or split the coating and opened the steel to even MORE fire damage ... (although that is entirely speculative but within the realm of reason)

Steel softens when heated ... fact !!!

Softened steel is weaker steel ... inescapable fact !!!

Heat transfer is governed by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat Transfer