JamesThomas
Like I say, you're looking at the Conspiracist claims soooo hard you've not given yourself the time required to 'get' how the official story you - and a host of self-appointed experts - presume is false.
It is like a group of people claiming a boat hit by a torpedo sank due to demolition charges placed inside the boat without any passengers noticing or anyone involved speaking about it afterwards, when the impact of the torpedo and subsequent damage are enough to explain the sinking. A lot of what you claim is non-falsifiable. The credulity to believe such a massive conspiracy involving the murder of almost 3,000 people is 'hush-up-able' is staggering. One can't even shoot a few Iraqi villagers in revenge for your buddy being killed without it coming out, let alone get a blow-job in the Oval Office, but you strain out the gnat whilst swallowing the camel! But of course the supreme unlikelihood of such a Conspiracy surviving is something Conspiracist don't address as they are believers... and like believers of all sorts they ignore the illogical nature of their beliefs because that is what belief is all about...
Fact; both the central columns and the perimeter columns took vertical loads from the floors, the core only took a bit more than the perimeter.
Fact; the beams would have lengthened and sagged due to heating.
Fact; this would have bowed the outer walls and sagged the floors; just as the photographs show.
You don't really have any comeback to the photographic evidence supporting the official story, do you? You just ignore the photos match the story... or rather your sources do...
Fact; at a certain point the attachment points would have failed; each was kept together with a handful of small bolts the thickness of a thumb. This is again proven by photographic evidence.
Fact; fire protection was stripped from the cores and floors, extensively proven by eye-witness testimony, ya know people who were there. I should have said previously "the core wasn't reinforced with concrete" as distinct from "The core was non-reinforced concrete". This lack of protection allowed massive thermal weakening to take place quickly in the jet-fuel fuelled phase of the fire and the office-materials phase of the fire (the latter phase is often ignored by Conspiracists as they chunter on about temperatures and burn times of jet fuel desperately trying to make themselves credible).
Fact; you have ignored (or rather your sources ignore) the asymmetrical nature of the collapse. BOTH towers' above the impact zones tilted during the collapse. Any kid who has built with Lego (let alone structural engineers) can tell you asymmetrical loads are BAD, and can bring stuff that is stable under a symmetrical load down quick as you like.
In your eagerness to believe you have uncovered (along with a special few) the 'truth' (sorry to dig into the psychology of belief but it is relevant), you ignore the simple fact that without the perimeter columns, the floors would pancake. The strength of the attachment to the central core was not enough to hold the floors up without the perimeter columns.
Given the fact the perimeter columns were vital to the structural integrity of the building, and the collapse event started asymmetrically, any claim the central core would have remained standing ignores the proven failure of the central core at the tilt points, and the subsequent overload and damage of lower core elements by the collapse of the building around it.
And that's just in a "thought-experiment remove outer walls" mode.
Looking at the actual event we see in WTC1 the south wall bowed inward due to the sagging of floor structures, causing failures of attachments and perimeter column instability, propagating across the south face. The wall "unloaded" and the hat truss redistributed the loads to a core weakened by heat damage. The building tilted south at around the impact point as the perimeter column instability extended along east and west walls, further increasing static load on the central column, let alone the fact it now had to deal with the change in potential energy due to the downward movement of the upper stories, or that the load was asymmetric (another thing your sources ignore) . This exceeded the strain energy the central column could have supported, and the building collapsed.
In WTC2 it was the east wall that bowed and failed, the portion of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east,loads were transfered to a weakened core column and the north and south walls, further perimeter column collapse took place, more load was transfered to the core column, which was taken far beyond it's load capability especially considering the asymmetrical nature of the event, and the change in potential energy caused by the movement of the upper stories, and the building collapsed.
You ignore the event is explainable using the official story and make much of so called 'mass media disinformation' when incredibly detailed analysis is easily and freely available. I don't see misinformation but the level of detail one gets when the mass media covers complex events, but as you've seemingly already made up your mind there is a Conspiracy, you'll leap to that conclusion as well.
You also ignore the fact many Conspiracists ALSO make claims regarding WTC7 and the Pentagon that are patently ludicrous (no plane when eye-witnesses saw it hit, mysterious planes that aren't mysterious, and yet swallow down what they say about WTC1 and 2 (with all the partial quotes and deceptions) without ever considering whether their credibility is affected...
Again, enjoy the research; I don't think there's much more that can be said about this as it seems to be more about a presupposition than anything to do with actual firm evidence of a demolition.
ALL you have done is shown that some people believe in a logically unsustainable Conspiracy they cannot prove when the offical explanation for the event is quite satisfactory, just like some people belive in logically unsustainable magic skymen they cannot prove when evolution is quite satisfactory...
