29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Justin39640]

Why do you make patently false statements?
[FONT=&quot]James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

[/FONT]He had a lot of problems with the NIST report:
"[FONT=&quot]I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report."
"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."[/FONT]
"[FONT=&quot]I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.” [/FONT]

OBL and 19 hijackers is a conspiracy. You are a conspiracy nut if you believe OBL and 19 hijackers did it.

from: http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

"truth?"ers twist and twist but in the end the mans words speak for themselves
he thinks that a plane caused fires that caused a collapse

you fail
next

no one credible supports gages disgusting fantasies

you must feel real safe believing that there are no terrorists in the world
keep apologizing for them

 

[Baylor]

Source?

Look a little harder there old fella'.

They verified that NIST had calculated the expansion correctly.

NIST was right thanks for proving that. You're one step closer to coming out of denial.

That is not an endorsement of the report.

Your posts don't make sense because you have a hard time grasping the definition of words. I am worried you may have alzheimer's. I hope you get yourself checked. Until then you're going on my Ignore list. You're my first! Congrats. Even Ultima didn't make it.

I'll check up on you in a week. Enjoy your stay on my Ignore list.

 

[Christopher7]

www.scopus.com/home.url

link down until 8 pm

They changed the codes on based on the report.

The changes had nothing to do with thermal expansion. If thermal expansion were really a problem then all buildings of similar design are subject to collapse and must be upgraded to prevent this from happening again. No structural changes or improvements are required to prevent failure due to thermal expansion.

Changing stairway codes is NOT an endorsement of the NIST final report thermal expansion collapse hypothesis.

 

[Baylor]

When Alzheimer’s disrupts memory, language, thinking and reasoning, these effects are referred to as “cognitive symptoms” of the disease.

In early stages of the disease, people may experience personality changes such as irritability, anxiety or depression. In later stages, other symptoms may occur, including sleep disturbances; agitation (physical or verbal outbursts, general emotional distress, restlessness, pacing, shredding paper or tissues, yelling); delusions (firmly held belief in things that are not real); or hallucinations (seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there).

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_behavioral_symptoms_ad.asp

 

[Christopher7]

Childish insults deleted

As usual, the reference you posted to make your case does exactly the opposite so you revert to mindless insults.

 

[Justin39640]

link down until 8 pm

The changes had nothing to do with thermal expansion. If thermal expansion were really a problem then all buildings of similar design are subject to collapse and must be upgraded to prevent this from happening again. No structural changes or improvements are required to prevent failure due to thermal expansion.

Changing stairway codes is NOT an endorsement of the NIST final report thermal expansion collapse hypothesis.

maybe you should read the doctor's PDF i just posted

in the end his argument is that NIST flubbed
and by flubbing some things their recommendations wont be correct
so in the course of keeping people safe he recommends a second look into WHY THE FIRES CAUSED THE BUILDINGS TO COLLAPSE

this is an example of LEGITIMATE criticism of the NIST
same here: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf
not supernanothemitic paint or death star beam fantasies

 

[Baylor]

The changes had nothing to do with thermal expansion. If thermal expansion were really a problem then all buildings of similar design are subject to collapse and must be upgraded to prevent this from happening again. No structural changes or improvements are required to prevent failure due to thermal expansion.

PWNED!

In addition to issuing one new recommendation--the need to conduct an explicit evaluation of the fire resistance of sturctural systems in buildings that share with WTC 7 such aforementioned features as a long-span floor systems, asymmetrial floor framing, composite floor systems and connections that were not designed for thermal effects.

NIST: World Trade Center Building 7 is First Known Case of a Tall Building Collapsing 'Primarily' from Fire.
Authors:Reid, Robert L.
Source:Civil Engineering (08857024); Oct2008, Vol. 78 Issue 10, p30-31, 2p

 

[Christopher7]

in the end his argument is that NIST flubbed and by flubbing some things their recommendations wont be correct

Flubbed?

so in the course of keeping people safe he recommends a second look into WHY THE FIRES CAUSED THE BUILDINGS TO COLLAPSE

That's what Richard Gage is saying, NIST 'flubbed' and we need an independent investigation.

this is an example of LEGITIMATE criticism of the NIST
same here: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf

[FONT=&quot]The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a significant possibility.[/FONT]​

​

 

[Christopher7]

NIST: World Trade Center Building 7 is First Known Case of a Tall Building Collapsing 'Primarily' from Fire.
Authors:Reid, Robert L.
Source:Civil Engineering (08857024); Oct2008, Vol. 78 Issue 10, p30-31, 2p

URL please.

 

[alex04]

Jun 17, 2009
29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11
— Gregg Roberts and Staff

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports

The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. These experts lay it all out.

For Some, the Doubts Began Early

"Something is wrong with this picture," thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings' responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, "How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?"...

read more...

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/64

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

This seals the deal. The experts have spoken.

That's awesome.

When's it going to court?

 

[T.A.M.]

Involved in the investigation does NOT mean they endorsed the final report.

How many engineers and scientists have stated they endorse the NIST Final report on the Trade Towers and/or WTC 7?
References please.

Well look who crawled out for another go.

As a non-professional I can see why you would not know this, but as professionals, we do not lend our names to investigations or papers, if we are in disagreement with the findings.

I know you have a hard time understanding this, but when we produce papers, we don't generally think our findings bogus.

Therefore, by having their names attached to the report, they have provided their support of the report.

You got a single grain of proof that any of those scientists do NOT support the NIST investigation findings????

and before you try it, that is not asking you to prove a negative, it is asking you to provide evidence that they oppose the report or do not support it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Chris, you do make me laugh,

My statement was that those scientists,

"openly support the official account of 9/11"

where in that sentence does it say that they "endorse" the NIST report?

I am not saying that most, if not all of them do, but since you are accusing me of making a false statement, where is your proof that these people do not openly support the official account of 9/11?

Thanks

TAM

 

[Bluesky]

According to AE911truth They have 29 structural "experts" that lay out the facts.

Not one of them claim any experience in tall buildings. Most of their claims of expertiese are innocuous and ordinary, and include statement like "I am a structural engineer" but some of the claims of expertiese from their "experts" are hillarious. These are my favorites:

1. "I have used explosives on many road projects"
2 40 years of experience on ships "but the principles are the same for other structures eg Towers". Of course this is our good friend Heiwa!.
3.a "former" structural engineer
4 "my expertise is in structure construction of bridges"
5."Expertise in Low-Rise Building Design, Renovation,Assessment & Rehabilitation
6."I joined the Vermont Agency of Transportation in 1989 where I have worked in the Structures Section since 1995."
7. "I received my BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 2007. I am currently working on my MS in Structural Engineering at the University"
8. "Structural engineer since 1986. Involved in design of hundreds of steel structures though none have been involved in airplane collisions"
9. (none provided)
10. "With over a year's experience in the structural field, I am a new graduate of structural and geotechnical Civil Engineering"
11. "After working as a Junior Engineer, I returned to pursue a Master's degree (just short)."

I think Heiwa finds himself in very good company.
I am sure NISt are quaking in their boots.!

 

[Heiwa]

According to AE911truth They have 29 structural "experts" that lay out the facts.

Not one of them claim any experience in tall buildings. Most of their claims of expertiese are innocuous and ordinary, and include statement like "I am a structural engineer" but some of the claims of expertiese from their "experts" are hillarious. These are my favorites:

1. "I have used explosives on many road projects"
2 40 years of experience on ships "but the principles are the same for other structures eg Towers". Of course this is our good friend Heiwa!.
3.a "former" structural engineer
4 "my expertise is in structure construction of bridges"
5."Expertise in Low-Rise Building Design, Renovation,Assessment & Rehabilitation
6."I joined the Vermont Agency of Transportation in 1989 where I have worked in the Structures Section since 1995."
7. "I received my BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 2007. I am currently working on my MS in Structural Engineering at the University"
8. "Structural engineer since 1986. Involved in design of hundreds of steel structures though none have been involved in airplane collisions"
9. (none provided)
10. "With over a year's experience in the structural field, I am a new graduate of structural and geotechnical Civil Engineering"
11. "After working as a Junior Engineer, I returned to pursue a Master's degree (just short)."

I think Heiwa finds himself in very good company.
I am sure NISt are quaking in their boots.!

It seems I am in good company and that I have the most experience of structural damage analysis in the team, even having an axiom named after me; a part (C = 1/10th) of a structure cannot one-way crush down the remainder of the structure (A = 9/10th) when dropped on it by gravity.
It seem none in the NIST team has done serious structural damage analysis prior 911! Can you name one?
Reason for the Björkman axiom is that it is difficult to prove theoretically. Practically no structures of any kind exist where part C can one-way crush down part A of same structure. I have asked at JREF forum and nobody can present a structure that self-destructs when C drops on A.
But you can try to do a theoretical analysis! The parts C and A are then assumed to consist of material elements connected to one another. Each element is charachterized by a mass and by a position. Part A is fixed on ground and part C is 'floating' in space prior impact. When part C (in free fall - no internal forces between C elements) contacts part A (in equilibrium with static forces between elements) due to a gravity drop and applies energy on the structure, all elements C and A are subject to dynamic forces and static forces build up in C (as C is now in contact with ground via A).
When energy applied is small, C just bounces on A. Only elastic deformations take place.
With a little more energy applied at contact (bigger drop height) it appears that the dynamic and, not to forget, static forces in C after contact, have a tendency to damage C with the result that C cannot one-way crush down A.
Evidently A is also affected by C dropping on it; A deforms elastically, it may suffer local damages to elements in and adjacent to the interface C/A, but the total result is always that C is destroyed while A is only partially affected.
Replace C with WTC 1 upper part and A with WTC 1 lower part and, voilà! What you see on all videos of WTC 1 at 911 is not the upper part one-way crushing the lower part of WTC 1 but a nice example of Controlled Explosive Demolition of some kind.

 

[twinstead]

I think somebody has an unrealistic opinion of himself

 

[bill smith]

You are conspicuously ignoring the fact that Dr. Quintiere has no use for "truthers." He regards your explosives myth as nonsense. There is no serious disagreement with the broad conclusions of the NIST reports in the engineering community. How can you trick us into believing that someone somewhere has found significant errors of science in these reports when plainly no one has?

1.James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

2.The Truth Movement has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Do you see any similarity in our relative positions ?

The old adage 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' applies somewhat here. That's enough. Our aims are the same. We are allies of convenience.

 

[Longfellow]

OT/ But 06, and this is 17th post! Really?

Yes, really.

I don't have the technical expertise to bandy words with the trolls but I do enjoy reading those that do. Of course, now that I think on it, the trolls don't have the technical expertise either but that doesn't stop them.

I mostly lurk for the amusement factor.

 

[GlennB]

from: http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf


"truth?"ers twist and twist but in the end the mans words speak for themselves
he thinks that a plane caused fires that caused a collapse

you fail
next

Can I get this straight.....

Quintiere thinks the actual mechanism of crash/fire-induced collapse might have been different from NIST's. He wants this checked out in the cause of advancing fire-safety in buildings. Chris7 takes this as Quintiere's support for CD?

Is that about it?

 

[GlennB]

1.James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

2.The Truth Movement has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Do you see any similarity in our relative positions ?

Yes.

NASA wanted to go to the moon for the sake of science and to advance space exploration.

You were hoping they would dig cheese mines.

 

[Toke]

Can I get this straight.....

Quintiere thinks the actual mechanism of crash/fire-induced collapse might have been different from NIST's. He wants this checked out in the cause of advancing fire-safety in buildings. Chris7 takes this as Quintiere's support for CD?

Is that about it?

Yes, that is how I read it.
Bill´s "allies of convenience", is hard to take serius.