DEBUNKERS! Please respond to the following debunking of the NIST report!

Just supporting trusses,etc.? The bracing supplied by these things were the glue to the whole system.

Without the bracing system the core and perimeter would have collapsed with no damage.

Again, your assuming that the building was like a stack of boxes. It was not. To collapse a "floor" you also have to sollapse the core in that area.

It was kinda like a stack of boxes. What made it a structurally sound system was the bracing. Collapsing the floor did collapse the column. Didn't you see this? It was on t.v. and in all the papers.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pavil
Not really, Each floor is designed to withstand it's own load with a hefty safety margin plus the overall support structure,

How does a floor's load not include all of the floors resting upon it?

Do you think the loads from all the floors above are totally disregarded when discussing a safety factor?

Again, if you took one of the middle floors, say floor 60, and stacked 50 more floors on top of it (the number of floors that DID rest on top of it), would it collapse?

Guys, guys,

Buildings, even houses, have "load bearing members." The floors themselves only bear the load of whatever the weight of the floor is plus whatever's been put on that floor (offices, furniture, carpets, etc.)

In the WTC, the load bearing mermbers were the closely spaced columns around the perimeter and the structure in the core. The trusses for each floor were tied to the load bearing structures at each end of the truss system.
So, yes, bsbray, it would collapse. There are certainly not "50 more floors" "resting" on top of any floor in any building on Earth.

You absolutely wouldn't need "50 floors" stacked on one for the floor to collapse. How many would you need? I have no idea. But I will tell you that you would need very, very few if you dropped them on the hypothetical floor you're trying to collapse rather than just "stacking" them.

Failure in either case would be at the joints at either, or both, ends of the truss system (under the floor) that distributes the weight of the floor to the outer columns and inner core. The columns would not have to fail, nor would the core. Only the connection between the truss(es) and the columns or core.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It certainly would going by your logic, that a floor could only withstand its own weight plus the weight of a few more floors. Yet the Towers stood for decades. How, pavil?

You're thinking very selectively about the structure, pavil, and I think you're having to go out of your way to do so.

But, anyway, it would be "surprising" for you too if you weren't thinking as so illogically of the structures of the buildings.

Assuming that the first floor of a hundred floor skyscraper is itself supporting the other 99 floors is thinking about as illogically as possible of the structure of any building.

You have no place telling other people that they aren't properly considering the structural design of any building if you yourself fail to consider the very meaning of the term "load bearing member."

Harte

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


"A Floor" is NOT supporting the weight of the floor above it.

Sorry but if higher floors come falling down on the lower floor it IS supporting their weight.

No, the box colums and lattice would be supporting the weight, not an individual floor.

Originally posted by Harte
The columns would not have to fail, nor would the core. Only the connection between the truss(es) and the columns or core.

So, if the core did not need to fil, why did it not remain standing at least partially?

I see theis argument in an analogy:

If you cut out an inch thick "slice of my torso" and the rest of my upper body "smacked" the lower part... would my legs be crushed, my skin pulverized and all in a straight down manner?

hey there howard rourke

i cant seem to find much video from cnn

so i started to look elsewhere

i came upon a link for abc news

the file name is :010912wtcfirstplane_video_popoff

i got that from this link: www.twin-towers.net...

but somehow it mysteriously vanished

so i am still looking for the FIRST PLANE CRASH VIDEO
that i SAW LIVE on CNN

cnn.com's crappy videos only show the 2nd plane hit and it appears that the camera guy was MOVING at the time........

the one i saw live was from street level ..
cnn guy interviewing someone then "incoming missile sound" then in upper
left of screen the plane came into view then
the camera guy focused and centered on it and watched it hit
the FISRT TOWEr..

and like i said ,, for the life of me i cannot remember
WHAT made me turn on the tv,, and watch the NEWS,........cnn yet!!



this was the file name/folder for the ABC video

"010912wtcfirstplane_video_popoff"

did a search on it and it says it's there at abc.com
BUT ITS NOT

Originally posted by Harte
So, yes, bsbray, it would collapse. There are certainly not "50 more floors" "resting" on top of any floor in any building on Earth.

When I say floors, I don't mean just trusses. I've been pretty aware that the trusses did not bear any global gravity loads, so the bulk of your post is apparently based on a misunderstanding.

Trusses failing as you describe is close enough to NIST's assertions. Same problems with that theory as there are with NIST's report: no supporting evidence (nowhere near enough "buckled" columns were observed on any floor to initiate a collapse), simulations failed to support NIST's theory, etc. Same problems as with all pancake collapse theories, too.