29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Grizzly Bear]

One can imagine all of the back flips, and hack & slash of quotes required to make that kind of irrational leap.

 

[bill smith]

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?

We Truthers consistently underestimate the importance of having the former chief of NIST's own Fire Science division calling for the same independent investigation of the collapses as we do.

We should start to make a much bigger deal out of this than we currently do.

It doesn't matter that he says he doesn't beelieve they were controlled Demolitions. All that matters is that he has called for an independent investigation like we have.

That will establish the facts.

 

[MarkyX]

We Truthers consistently underestimate the importance of having the former chief of NIST's own Fire Science division calling for the same independent investigation of the collapses as we do.

We should start to make a much bigger deal out of this than we currently do.

It doesn't matter that he says he doessn't beelieve they were controlled Demolitions. All that matters is that he has called for an independent investigation like we have.

That will establish the facts.

You guys will just leech onto anything, don't you?

 

[Justin39640]

We Truthers consistently underestimate the importance of having the former chief of NIST's own Fire Science division calling for the same independent investigation of the collapses as we do.

We should start to make a much bigger deal out of this than we currently do.

It doesn't matter that he says he doessn't beelieve they were controlled Demolitions. All that matters is that he has called for an independent investigation like we have.

That will establish the facts.

thats because his findings DO NOT support "truth?"-ers case
it hurts it

why do you think you dont use the paper from "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat"
cause it says in black in white the "truth?" movements ideas are insane

if they didnt have that disclaimer right in the intro im sure you would be boasting about them right now too

 

[Bluesky]

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;

No I cannot name one NIST person who has personally named an axiom after himself.
And if you mean the Heiwa Challenge... you seem to forget that its easy to solve:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4813258#post4813258

And I would also agree that you are in good company. You are marginally more experienced than several of the ae911truth experts such as the "expert" engineering grad who finished his degree in 2007. By my reckoning he would have been 14 on 9/11. And you are probably more experienced than the guy who nearly got a masters or the expert whose expertiese is "none provided "

A leader of fools is still a fool

 

[BigAl]

We Truthers consistently underestimate the importance of having the former chief of NIST's own Fire Science division calling for the same independent investigation of the collapses as we do.

You have an interesting and unique definition of "same". Dr. Quintiere says Twoofers claims are nuts.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST.s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. .If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the .conspiracy theories. that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it.s one of the floors falling down..

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. .It says that the core columns,
uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place..

 

[Heiwa]

No I cannot name one NIST person who has personally named an axiom after himself.
And if you mean the Heiwa Challenge... you seem to forget that its easy to solve:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4813258#post4813258

And I would also agree that you are in good company. You are marginally more experienced than several of the ae911truth experts such as the "expert" engineering grad who finished his degree in 2007. By my reckoning he would have been 14 on 9/11. And you are probably more experienced than the guy who nearly got a masters or the expert whose expertiese is "none provided "

A leader of fools is still a fool

The Heiwa Challenge easy to solve? Your house of cards didn't even pass THC rule #4. Blu-tak! What damping coefficient did it have? Have another try! It is fun!

 

[Heiwa]

No I cannot name one NIST person who has personally named an axiom after himself.

Haven't you heard about the Sunder axiom of thermal expansion? Or the Gross axiom of free fall? All false of course ... except at NIST!

 

[bill smith]

You have an interesting and unique definition of "same". Dr. Quintiere says Twoofers claims are nuts.

'' Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST.s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. .If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the .conspiracy theories. that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it.s one of the floors falling down..''

Not exectly a ringing rejection of explosive demolition

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'' Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. .It says that the core columns,
uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place....''

....with which conclusion he disagrees strongly enough as to call for a new and independent investigation of he collapses on 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

'' Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST.s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. .If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the .conspiracy theories. that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it.s one of the floors falling down..''

Not exectly a ringing rejection of explosive demolition

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'' Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. .It says that the core columns,
uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place....''

....with which conclusion he disagrees strongly enough as to call for a new and independent investigation of he collapses on 9/11.

Dr Q thinks your ideas are nut case moronic crazy.

Good job proving Dr Q is against your anti-intellectual claptrap. ringing ...

Ms Smith here is a

, call your mother. Tell her there is serious doubt about you becoming an engineer. (paper chase 1973)

 

[bill smith]

Haven't you heard about the Sunder axiom of thermal expansion? Or the Gross axiom of free fall? All false of course ... except at NIST!

lol. I must add those to my liist of 'debunker axioms'

''Everything is under everything else''

' 9/11 was an outside job ''

''A camel may go through the eye of a needle but an airliner may go through anything ''

'' Steel may fall and disappear, but then again, where do all the missing socks go ''

'' 'Could have been', might' and 'possibly' are high measures of statistical probability '

I nicked your one Heiwa.

The Gross axiom of freefall:
:'' Freefall may occur in three discrete steps. ' Drop like a stone', 'Plunge' and 'BANG' ''

 

[beachnut]

29 people with failed ideas on 911

 

[Senenmut]

i wonder if sunder had a good grasp of his model before he had to be shown by a high school physics teacher that freefall did take place.

My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685


then watch nist admit freefall!
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Get serious. Those people could not know what the findings would be when they made their individual contributions. In a real investigation, the result is not preordained.

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

Double talk. They provided support of to the report.

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

And you have not a single grain of proof that most of those scientists do support the NIST investigation.

Your statement is baseless.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

You and GlennB need to take a remedial reading course. I made no such claim.

 

[Justin39640]

you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

that sequence started right before the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse
you know the part every "truth?"er cuts out of the video

lies and deceptive edits rule the minds of "truth?"ers

 

[Justin39640]

You and GlennB need to take a remedial reading course. I made no such claim.

then why would you reference his work?

 

[Bluesky]

The Heiwa Challenge easy to solve? Your house of cards didn't even pass THC rule #4. Blu-tak! What damping coefficient did it have? Have another try! It is fun!

Sorry Heiwa I forgot that you wanted me to use glue rather than blu-tak. So one of the many solutions to Heiwas challenge is shown below. There are many more.!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4813928#post4813928

And of course it was stable and it did comply with Rule 4 before it collapsed. Why would it not be stable?

As for fun, it is more like a kindergarten task, so a bit tedious and boring.
Heiwa concedes defeat?

 

[Architect]

Are you a structural engineer? If not, then you are not an expert and your opinion means nothing. If you are, then you are outvoted 29 to 1.

Not to be rude, but you're not an expert and your opinion means nothing.

I design these things for a living.

 

[Senenmut]

you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

that sequence started right before the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse
you know the part every "truth?"er cuts out of the video

lies and deceptive edits rule the minds of "truth?"ers

so did sunder admit freefall in that last post?

did a period of freefall occur when wtc 7 collapsed?

did sunder understand his model...or not?

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.