Telescoping Steel?

Dozens of private agencies? Where does this nonsense come from? The closest thing to a private agency was the BPAT team that FEMA (a government agency) oversaw and neglected.

Also, telescoping has this definition:

To cause to slide inward or outward in overlapping sections

A diagonal slice on a column will cause it to fall inwards. Hope that clears that up.


I'm also wondering what makes the core give out in such a way as to allow WTC1 to fall straight down right from the get-go.

So basically the term buckling will work as well.



let me ask you all this:


In the absense of the lateral bracing provided by the floor slabs and the Vierendeel truss of the exterior walls, would the core have been able to stand on its own?

In other words, if the exterior walls and floor slabs were removed, would the core structure, have been able to stand on its own without buckling?

Originally posted by Miconats
hmmm, I still don't buy into this because dozens of private agencies were consulted on the collapse of the towers

Can you be more specific?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So basically the term buckling will work as well.



let me ask you all this:


In the absense of the lateral bracing provided by the floor slabs and the Vierendeel truss of the exterior walls, would the core have been able to stand on its own?

In other words, if the exterior walls and floor slabs were removed, would the core structure, have been able to stand on its own without buckling?

A free standing core? No. What's your point? If you're trying to suggest that at the moment of collapse initation that because that specific collapse point gave out and compromised the inner core at the same time because the "inner core couldn't stand without lateral bracing", what about all that followed down to the base of the building?

Maybe I can illustrate your point more.

Are you saying that buckling was inevitable because seemingly the exterior columns, all seemed to fail simultaneously and all lateral bracing became immediate absent. That's TO SAY the official story is true with the buckling exterior column theory.

However I think more is in the balance than simply applying no "immediate" lateral bracing, and the immediate failure of exterior columns, but I'm getting all too off track.

Howard, can you please explain yourself more.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Masisoar]

It was a hypothetical question unrelated to any specific collapse scenario.

What I want to know is if anyone thinks that the core could have stood on its own, without the floors and exterior walls.

The answer is that it couldn't since the lack of lateral bracing would have doomed it to collapse.



[edit on 7-11-2006 by HowardRoark]


Edit for BS

By lateral bracing, I do not mean beams, I mean diagonal cross bracing.

Imagine a cardboard box that you cut the top and bootm off of an lay on its side.

You have two sides that form columns and one side in top that forms a beam.

If you sit on that, will it support your weight?





[edit on 7-11-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So basically the term buckling will work as well.

HowardRoark, when was the last time you learned anything about structural engineering? 30? 40 years ago? Ever?

"Buckling" is not the same thing as being sliced diagonally and sliding downwards, into the structure. Either you are becoming more and more senile as time goes on, or more and more desparate to wave your arms and distract from relevant issues. It's ridiculous how unrelated these two items are. Buckling is just that -- BUCKLING. Telescoping is what would happens when you slice a column in a way that causes it to fall right down in some direction.

In the absense of the lateral bracing provided by the floor slabs and the Vierendeel truss of the exterior walls, would the core have been able to stand on its own?

The core was laterally braced on its own, not like the floor slabs were providing the lateral support to begin with.

I'm beginning to understand why you used to always ask for structural engineers' opinions, Howard, because you apparently know nothing of it yourself. The trusses (core to perimeter) and actual beams within the core itself provided the lateral bracing, not the concrete slabs. Do you think the concrete was just hanging mid-air or something?

[edit on 7-11-2006 by bsbray11]

What's that, HowardRoark?

Somebody decide to temporary bolt large beams across core columns for no particular reason?

No one would build such a structure without lateral bracing anyway. It would be asinine and the building would have piss poor integrity compared to what it could have with such bracing in place.

I could also post pictures of the WTC1 "spire" still standing, showing the fully-constructed, floor-by-floor bracing between the columns if you want. The above image shows the building still under construction, in case you aren't seeing that.



Edit for HowardRoark:

The bracing would not have to be diagonal for the core structure to hold together as a unit against trusses failing at their connections. The connections themselves would fail much sooner than it would tear out a whole freaking 3' box column, solidly braced to the others.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Yeah Howard, I honestly didn't know where you were going with that, as you can see my confused rambling in my post.

What are you trying to prove or conclusion are you establishing?

Besides whatever Howard is attempting to get at, we shall see, anymore comments on the diagonal cutting of the steel column and thoughts?

Or thoughts into what happened to the inner core in both buildings that allowed for a completely vertical collapse, and inevitably the total destruction of the building.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Yeah Howard, I honestly didn't know where you were going with that, as you can see my confused rambling in my post.

What are you trying to prove or conclusion are you establishing?

I was just trying to see who thinks that the core structure could have stood on its own.

What are you trying to get to with that though? lol.

You suggest the core could not have stood on its own, yet you don't tell us how you think it should have failed.

It could have supported its own gravity loads -- no doubt, because it supported its own PLUS some before the Towers fell.

The forces the core structure would be suspect to would be LATERAL. Ie, WIND. We shouldn't have seen them come straight down, and most assuredly the connections would have failed to the trusses before the trusses could yank those huge box columns out of their lateral bracing to one another.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So basically the term buckling will work as well.



let me ask you all this:


In the absense of the lateral bracing provided by the floor slabs and the Vierendeel truss of the exterior walls, would the core have been able to stand on its own?

In other words, if the exterior walls and floor slabs were removed, would the core structure, have been able to stand on its own without buckling?

To a point, yes. Remember the lateral bracing INSIDE the core? How about all the elevator shaft bracing? Also remember that the core had diagonal bracing at the reinforced floors? So, yes it should have stood...like we see at the end but for some reason telescopes into itself?

BTW Howard, I know you're going to post your favorite picture of the columns with horizontal lateral bracing. The difference is, in your pic there are joints AT the lateral bracing. In the core of the WTC towers, the lateral bracing wasn't on any joints because there were no joints....only welds. Same applies to your cardboard box scenario...there are joints at the corners of the box.

Now take your cardboard box and cut all sides. Glue (weld) the top and bottom not at the joints. Think of a bookcase without the back. Do bookcases fall down when you put books on them? Or even fall over when you lean on one side? Or buckle into themselves?

Nice try though.

Edit. I'm not talking about flimsy bookcases that just have pegs for support.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Griff]

bsBray11

Thanks for posting that picture.

Now I ask all the doubters, could that network of braced steel have melted and telescoped into itself over 70 floors straight down. Think about it. Because thats what everybody is told they should believe. And I did until this year, bought all the BS because well, it had to be true what other reason could there have been.

It little bit of common sense is all it takes when we review the information to understand the story we are told actually isn't logical or even works with basic physics.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It little bit of common sense is all it takes when we review the information to understand the story we are told actually isn't logical or even works with basic physics.

The people who did this and the ones who are covering it up don't care about basic physics. Remember the magic bullet? How can real scientists believe their own crap? I mean, how can a bullet hit someone in three different places and do 180 degree turns? But the American sheeple bit it hook line and sinker. Same applies to 9/11. They know that people on the whole are big dumb animals. They count on this to get away with it.

Originally posted by Valhall
I have no earthly idea what it is. All I know is this - it's not cutting torch slag,

Looks like slag to me Val.

I`m guessing here, it may have been by a thermal lance.

en.wikipedia.org...:Thermal_lance.2004-8-4.jpg

I`ve not used one myself but have seen the aftermath of one used which left a hole about 75mm in dia straight through a lump of hardened steel at least eight foot thick when i was in the mining industry,these things can push through anything i`ve been told,and what i`ve seen can make a right mess.

Here`s some pic`s of a smallish lance.
www.krl.com.au...

If i were contracted to a cleanup/rescue as yo the likes of those towers a thermal lance would be in the tool box first.



[edit on 9-11-2006 by gps777]

Holy Cow gps. Look how long that lance is! I have not ever seen one of those before.

Originally posted by Valhall
Holy Cow gps. Look how long that lance is!

They`re pretty cool though,though like i said i`m guessing as to the tool used on those beams,but would be my first guess and tool of choice on that type of job when neatness is not required but speed and effectiveness is (as in nothing will stop it)

It's interesting how a real collapse looks compared to a controlled demo'd building.
The steel girders and I beams get all twisted up, and the structure stands taller as well. A building recently collapsed in wind storm and it looked very different than the 3 9/11 "collapses". Look at earthquake collapses as well they don't look like a demo'd building.

If it looks like a duck & sounds like a duck, it must be a duck.

Same with 9/11 so many therioes out there don't make sense or really fail to have the ring of truth. The demo'd buildings when all the variable's are considered just seem logical after you remove all the patriotic emotion that blinds so many.