More WTC True Facts from Dave Farber's IP list

More WTC True Facts from Dave Farber's IP list:

From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: New York Report
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:14:39 -0700

[...]

A word on the structure of the WTC towers:

The WTC towers had a distinctive structural system which utilized
the exterior wall framing for lateral bracing -- a so-called lattice
framework. This allowed minimization of internal lateral bracing
and opened up the floor plans. You can see the effect of that when
the buildings collapsed, with the lattice framework crumbling and
the interior imploding. The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes.

The planes punched holes in the lattice, one tower punched
on two sides, maybe the other too. Portions of the lattice of
the second tower briefly remained standing after the collapse,
then fell.

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.

More WTC True Facts from Dave Farber's IP list:

From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: New York Report
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:14:39 -0700

[...]

A word on the structure of the WTC towers:

The WTC towers had a distinctive structural system which utilized
the exterior wall framing for lateral bracing -- a so-called lattice
framework. This allowed minimization of internal lateral bracing
and opened up the floor plans. You can see the effect of that when
the buildings collapsed, with the lattice framework crumbling and
the interior imploding. The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes.

The planes punched holes in the lattice, one tower punched
on two sides, maybe the other too. Portions of the lattice of
the second tower briefly remained standing after the collapse,
then fell.

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

Yes Australian AC, keep believing the nano-thermite version...you sound like Rosie Odonnel claiming that she's never seen steel melt...sorry but it's Occam's Razor, the most wherein the most simple theory needn't be multiplied. Meaning there was no grand conspiracy by the gov or Jew's to take the building down. It was multiple 767's/757's.

ARE YOU ANAL-phabet! So,yes ...you can not read by stupidity! lolly poper


This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

Yes Australian AC, keep believing the nano-thermite version...you sound like Rosie Odonnel claiming that she's never seen steel melt...sorry but it's Occam's Razor, the most wherein the most simple theory needn't be multiplied. Meaning there was no grand conspiracy by the gov or Jew's to take the building down. It was multiple 767's/757's.




The most simple theory is controlled demolition. Everything else is BS, just like your post.

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

ARE YOU ANAL-phabet! So,yes ...you can not read by stupidity! lolly poper

What you suggest would imply symmetrical failure for not one but two buildings leading both to fall into there own footprints.


There is only one way a building falls in its own footprint and it isn't by hitting it with an airplane.

ARE YOU ANAL-phabet! So,yes ...you can not read by stupidity! lolly poper



WTF is this shit?

What you suggest would imply symmetrical failure for not one but two buildings leading both to fall into there own footprints.


There is only one way a building falls in its own footprint and it isn't by hitting it with an airplane.


From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: New York Report
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:14:39 -0700 capisse :burnit:

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

Which then become overloaded and fail....

Seriously...you people should look at the real construction of WTC1 and 2....they were built like shit...really the first mega-huge skyscraper built with cheap ass methodology...I hear so much just plain wrong info about them it;s really pretty sad...

The Main Beams were 4" thick!...on the bottom they were...the upper floors?...they tapered down to 1/4" thick...due to weight.

Tons of concrete!...lightweight concrete on all the floors...which is more or less pumis and is light as shit and has hardly any structural stregnth...

All the floors were attached with isolation connectors (rubber blocks) where the trusswork connected to the outer skeleton..

Really the whole thing was built like tinker toy construction...I was there when they went up and everyone in NY hated those pieces of shit when they went up...we only grew to like them after awhile...

We were used to cool sky scrapers....The Empire State Building...The Crysler building...and now THOSE buildings are BUILT...concrete steel and Lime stone...the WTC was and iron box skeleton and they just clad the thing with Aluminum foil and the lowest ratio of concrete to steel at the time, which ended up being a bad idea....it was designed to have the most open floor space and they were well over 90% air...

It did not shock me at all when those giant tinker toy tubes fell apart...and anyone who actually looks at the actual construction and the physics behind the loads sees exactly why and how they failed and collapsed...

But you guys have fun with your physicsblimpblowmeup.com nano squibs stuff...

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

Which then become overloaded and fail....

Seriously...you people should look at the real construction of WTC1 and 2....they were built like shit...really the first mega-huge skyscraper built with cheap ass methodology...I hear so much just plain wrong info about them it;s really pretty sad...

The Main Beams were 4" thick!...on the bottom they were...the upper floors?...they tapered down to 1/4" thick...due to weight.

Tons of concrete!...lightweight concrete on all the floors...which is more or less pumis and is light as shit and has hardly any structural stregnth...

All the floors were attached with isolation connectors (rubber blocks) where the trusswork connected to the outer skeleton..

Really the whole thing was built like tinker toy construction...I was there when they went up and everyone in NY hated those pieces of shit when they went up...we only grew to like them after awhile...

We were used to cool sky scrapers....The Empire State Building...The Crysler building...and now THOSE buildings are BUILT...concrete steel and Lime stone...the WTC was and iron box skeleton and they just clad the thing with Aluminum foil and the lowest ratio of concrete to steel at the time, which ended up being a bad idea....it was designed to have the most open floor space and they were well over 90% air...

It did not shock me at all when those giant tinker toy tubes fell apart...and anyone who actually looks at the actual construction and the physics behind the loads sees exactly why and how they failed and collapsed...

But you guys have fun with your physicsblimpblowmeup.com nano squibs stuff...

It did not shock me at all when those giant tinker toy tubes fell apart...and anyone who actually looks at the actual construction and the physics behind the loads sees exactly why and how they failed and collapsed...

But you guys have fun with your physicsblimpblowmeup.com nano squibs stuff...


hmm, 1000 real architects and engineers say otherwise. I believe them and my own eyes. Asymmetric damage can not cause symmetrical collapse. Core columns do not simultaneously fail on all floors. Demo companies get paid a lot to make sure that happens.

besides, there is foreknowledge, coverup of evidence, video of explosions, officials saying WTC is going to explode, and yes WTC collapses in similar manner with NO PLANE!!

therefore no planes are needed for collapse of WTC1 and 2

Riiiight....the architect I had design an addition for me was a stoner retard with an officail stamp...I designed it and gave it to him with full CAD drawings and solid models...and he STILL fucked it up...and how many of those "Engineers" are civil engineers?

More WTC True Facts from Dave Farber's IP list:

From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: New York Report
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:14:39 -0700

[...]

A word on the structure of the WTC towers:

The WTC towers had a distinctive structural system which utilized
the exterior wall framing for lateral bracing -- a so-called lattice
framework. This allowed minimization of internal lateral bracing
and opened up the floor plans. You can see the effect of that when
the buildings collapsed, with the lattice framework crumbling and
the interior imploding. The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes.

The planes punched holes in the lattice, one tower punched
on two sides, maybe the other too. Portions of the lattice of
the second tower briefly remained standing after the collapse,
then fell.

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.

Yes Australian AC, keep believing the nano-thermite version...you sound like Rosie Odonnel claiming that she's never seen steel melt...sorry but it's Occam's Razor, the most wherein the most simple theory needn't be multiplied. Meaning there was no grand conspiracy by the gov or Jew's to take the building down. It was multiple 767's/757's.

More WTC True Facts from Dave Farber's IP list:

From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: New York Report
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:14:39 -0700

[...]

A word on the structure of the WTC towers:

The WTC towers had a distinctive structural system which utilized
the exterior wall framing for lateral bracing -- a so-called lattice
framework. This allowed minimization of internal lateral bracing
and opened up the floor plans. You can see the effect of that when
the buildings collapsed, with the lattice framework crumbling and
the interior imploding. The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes.

The planes punched holes in the lattice, one tower punched
on two sides, maybe the other too. Portions of the lattice of
the second tower briefly remained standing after the collapse,
then fell.

The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for
it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam-
supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have
totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors
above the damage would have come down if columns were
weakened.


"The lattice works so long as it remains
intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system
goes."

This a total lie. The truth is that if a part of it goes, then the load is transferred to the adjacent parts of the system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're just one more lying POS shill.