Vertical core columns wtc 9/11: Realistic collapse scenario without explosives

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by creativedreams, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. creativedreams
    Offline

    creativedreams Weaver

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,165
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Here is a more realistic collapse scenario without explosives with them vertical central core columns....

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Gamolon
    Offline

    Gamolon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,117
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +356
    Creative.

    Just curious.

    Can you please tell me what the difference in loads would be on the core columns from the first stage I circled in red and the third stage I circled in red in your image below?
    [​IMG]

    Just curious. I mean, in the third stage you have completely removed the perimeter columns which helped in the distribution of the loads above. In the third stage you have the weight of the the antenna, hat truss, and floors (how many floors hanging from the core columns?) all applied to the core columns now. What I don't get is that you show the core columns right below the hat truss bending inward yet the core columns at the level of impact you show them staying straight. Even though the columns in that area have been weakened by fire AND have been damaged by the jet smashing into them.

    Care to elaborate on how that works?
     
  3. Fizz
    Offline

    Fizz BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,391
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +349
    where is the damage to the core from THE BIG FUCKING PLANE that hit the building (did you forget about that?) and how is that factored in?

    also, the core was designed to carry vertical weight only. it was stabilized horizontally by the floor trusses going to the perimeter columns. it was not designed to stand by itself, nevermind the stresses of a building collapsing around it.
     
  4. Gamolon
    Offline

    Gamolon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,117
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +356
    I see Creative is only interested in posting new topics as SPAM and never returning to debate the claims.

    Typical.
     
  5. creativedreams
    Offline

    creativedreams Weaver

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,165
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    The drawing is something I came across on a search. I will find it again and see what the person who drew it says and even link it.

    I agreed with you before I even posted it about the crimp in the core columns at the top of the building. I wonder if the author had in mind the the roof trusses would have caused this crimp?

    This diagram is closer to how I pictured what a collapse would look like (if it were to collapse).

    The interior core columns, especially the ones not even having floor trusses touching them, should have stood.

    At least the solid vertical columns welded from bedrock to the top floor could not have cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.
     
  6. Gamolon
    Offline

    Gamolon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,117
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +356
    Let's discuss this first. I have asked you about this statement in other threads you started.

    Why would the core columns have to have been "blown out" for the "top floor" to hit the ground? The core columns were not "below" the floors to impeded their collapse to the ground. Here is a diagram of how the floors were "connected" to the core columns:
    [​IMG]

    The floor trusses were BOLTED to the SIDES of the perimeter columns and core columns per the diagram above.

    The other part of your quote that the core columns were blasted out ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND is wrong also based on this photo of the partial core still standing:
    [​IMG]

    The core columns are still standing at this point, but the floors are gone from AROUND the core.

    Your thoughts?
     
  7. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,906
    Thanks Received:
    5,107
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,702
    Pretty obvious that the building is falling down. Next.
     
  8. Gamolon
    Offline

    Gamolon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,117
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +356
    Also Creative, in this diagram you posted:
    [​IMG]

    You reference the drawing above and say that the columns should have stood. Based on what? How much did the load on the core columns change from the first circled stage in the picture above to the third circled stage in the picture above.

    The first stage is spreading the loads amongst the perimeter columns and the core columns. In the third stage you are now putting ALL loads on the core columns as the diagram shows the perimeter columns stripped away.

    Not to mention that many of the core columns have been weakened by fire to further reduce their strength.
     
  9. Gamolon
    Offline

    Gamolon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,117
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +356
    No discussion/debate Creative?
     
  10. creativedreams
    Offline

    creativedreams Weaver

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,165
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Been busy lately...I am going to put something together and be back tomorrow eve with it..:eusa_think:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

wtc core collapse