I am currently in a discussion with a so called '9/11 truther' who claims there is no adequate explanation for the collapse of the central core columns of the WTC towers. (Sorry to beat a dead horse)
Based on my viewing of a documentary, I argued that the composite floors added a 'stiffening' effect (i presume engineers call this 'diaphragmic action'?), and that because the floors collapsed first, this compromised the structural integrity of the columns and caused the main columns to collapse quickly after the floors. This documentary is can be seen here and the explanation is at 45:10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgwlFY-4Txc
I'm however not 100% whether this explanation is satisfying enough. It seems logical enough for the perimeter columns, but is it also true of the core? Is the idea of of your building core being stabilised by diaphragmic action of the floors something that is common or should a framed tube building core be designed completely independant of any stabilising effect this action might provide?
My discussion partner claims that it is absurd for a building core to be dependant on the floors like this. It might be a tall order, but I wonder if someone experienced in this subject can provide some clarity.
Just for context, I am not an engineer, but a draughtsman in the construction industry.