29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[twinstead]

It's over, man, it's over.

In many ways it never even started

 

[Bluesky]

Rule 12. Attack the argument, not the arguer. - Darat

Can you deal with these facts?

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.
The NIST structural modeling does not!
< snip for boredom>

But this thread and the argument is about the new press release put out by the ae911truth group and the views of their "experts". So will you please attack the arguments that their experts have no substance.

 

[Christopher7]

But this thread and the argument is about the new press release put out by the ae911truth group and the views of their "experts". So will you please attack the arguments that their experts have no substance.

You-all belittle and slander anyone who doubts the OCT so your criticisms of these people are dubious.

Your contention that only SE's with tall building experience are qualified to speak on this subject is absurd. Anyone with a degree in engineering and structural engineering experience can understand the principles involved.

No one here is qualified to say these 29 engineers don't know what they are talking about. Architect says his credentials are on file with JREF as if that were credible. It is not. It means nothing to anyone but the fanatically faithful on this forum. Give your real name and credentials as these 29 engineers have done or loose the condecending attitude. It is entirely unjustified.

So I will turn it around and ask you to attack what they are saying and instead of relentlessly attacking them.

What specific statements do you dissagree with and why?
Please try to be adult in your responses.


BTW: NIST has not explained the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
A new, independent investigation is required to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

 

[Architect]

Your contention that only SE's with tall building experience are qualified to speak on this subject is absurd. Anyone with a degree in engineering and structural engineering experience can understand the principles involved.

Yes and no. You are correct that anyone qualified in structures should be able to follow the collapse mechanisms set out in the NIST report; by the same theory, however, professional incompetence should never occur and PII insurance is un-necessary. It also assumes that the engineers have studied the report and are familiar with its findings.

Nevertheless, the design of tall buildings is a specialist area - and for good reason. Issues such as dynamic wind loadings are incredibly complex, likewise the analysis of load paths and the like. There are, in fact, only a handful of structural firms we would consider as having the necessary skills to deal with this.

Let me put it another way. I'm sure that my GP has a grasp of the basic principles of open heart surgery, but frankly I wouldn't let him try it out on me.

No one here is qualified to say these 29 engineers don't know what they are talking about.

Wrong, there are several of us here who are qualified - look that up, if you want - to comment in depth about the issues. And, for example, it includes Heiwa who's expertise has more holes that the Scottish first XV's defence.

Architect says his credentials are on file with JREF as if that were credible. It is not. It means nothing to anyone but the fanatically faithful on this forum.

I designed tall buildings. I gave the Mods sufficient bona fides as to qualifications, professional memberships, employer, and the like. They checked them - I was even contacted at work. Sorry, but I think that'll be enough for most folk here.

 

[stateofgrace]

BTW: NIST has not explained the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
A new, independent investigation is required to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

What’s stopping the 29 qualified engineers you keep quoting from carrying out such an investigation?

Why don’t they write an engineering report, giving a full and qualified version of events, submit it for peer review and get it published?

And since you are not one of these qualified engineers what gives to the right to say whether the investigation by NIST is correct or not? Maybe you should keep your unqualified opinions to yourself. Maybe once your 29 qualified engineers have written a full report; got it published and accepted by the wider engineering community you will have something to back your unqualified opinions, until then that is all you have, unqualified, uneducated opinions. You use your own unqualified opinions to belittle anybody that dares to question you are even bothers to engage you. Your own criticisms are based on nothing other than your unqualified bias. So why don’t you keep your unqualified opinions to yourself?

Or can we all have a say on a public forum?

Edit, nevermind.

 

[Architect]

In fact, let's turn this around. If Chris believes (as he appears to) that any structural engineer can understand the issue then how does he square the silence of many, many, many thousands worldwide? Especially when the results of the NIST study were so widely circulated?

 

[Christopher7]

Yes and no. You are correct that anyone qualified in structures should be able to follow the collapse mechanisms set out in the NIST report;

And the distorted data, omissions and outright lies. They can understand that the NIST reports are not science.

by the same theory, however, professional incompetence should never occur and PII insurance is un-necessary.

?

It also assumes that the engineers have studied the report and are familiar with its findings.

They have and they are. Have you read the final report on WTC 7? Are you familiar with the fact that it fell at free fall for about 100 feet? Do you understand that cannot happen in a progressive collapse and did not happen in the NIST collapse model?

Nevertheless, the design of tall buildings is a specialist area - and for good reason. Issues such as dynamic wind loadings are incredibly complex, likewise the analysis of load paths and the like. There are, in fact, only a handful of structural firms we would consider as having the necessary skills to deal with this.

As an architect, you are not as qualified as a structural engineer on these matters. Do you do the engineering or just design?

Wrong, there are several of us here who are qualified to comment in depth about the issues.- look that up, if you want

Where specifically? Is there a structural engineer with tall building experience?

And, for example, it includes Heiwa who's expertise has more holes that the Scottish first XV's defence.

Balderdash. This is an example of the automatic rejection of anyone who doesn't believe the OCT.

I designed tall buildings. I gave the Mods sufficient bona fides as to qualifications, professional memberships, employer, and the like. They checked them - I was even contacted at work. Sorry, but I think that'll be enough for most folk here.

Correct

 

[funk de fino]

BTW: NIST has not explained the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7.
A new, independent investigation is required to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

You are a blatant and repeat liar.

 

[funk de fino]

I'd like C7 to pass his qualifications and experience to the mods.

 

[Christopher7]

In fact, let's turn this around. If Chris believes (as he appears to) that any structural engineer can understand the issue then how does he square the silence of many, many, many thousands worldwide? Especially when the results of the NIST study were so widely circulated?

Nothing can be assumed one way or the other as to the thinking of those who have not spoken out, however, the majority of architects and engineers who hear Richard Gage's presentation agree with him when he has finished.

 

[stateofgrace]

Nothing can be assumed one way or the other as to the thinking of those who have not spoken out, however, the majority of architects and engineers who hear Richard Gage's presentation agree with him when he has finished.

Prove this claim with facts and figures.

 

[Baylor]

C7 is a perfect candidate for your ignore feature. He makes boring repetitive posts with stupid assumptions. In other words....

 

[stateofgrace]

C7 is a perfect candidate for your ignore feature. He makes boring repetitive posts with stupid assumptions. In other words....
http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

He will being going back on ignore once he proves his claim that the majority of engineers and architects who listen to Gage believe him.

Come on Chris how many?

 

[Christopher7]

C7 is a perfect candidate for your ignore feature. He makes boring repetitive posts with stupid assumptions. In other words....

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That is a fact, not an assumption. A progressive structural collapse, by definition, cannot result in free fall acceleration. JERFers find facts boring. You enjoy childish insults more because they don't require any thought.

 

[funk de fino]

Nothing can be assumed one way or the other as to the thinking of those who have not spoken out, however, the majority of architects and engineers who hear Richard Gage's presentation agree with him when he has finished.

This is another lie.

How many has he added to his membership from his recent talks?

 

[funk de fino]

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That is a fact, not an assumption. A progressive structural collapse, by definition, cannot result in free fall acceleration. JERFers find facts boring. You enjoy childish insults more because they don't require any thought.

Which part fell at freefall?

I would like you to pass your qualifications and experience to the mods. Is this a probelm?

 

[Christopher7]

Prove this claim with facts and figures.

There is no hard data but someone did the math using the show of hands at a number of presentations. Over 80% of the people who believed the OCT or were unsure at the beginning did not believe the OCT at the end. You can believe that or not. I don't care. Come to a presentation and see for yourself.

 

[Christopher7]

Which part fell at freefall?

NCSTAR 1A 1-A pg 45
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

I would like you to pass your qualifications and experience to the mods. Is this a probelm?

It is a pointless diversion that I will not discuss further.

 

[funk de fino]

There is no hard data but someone did the math using the show of hands at a number of presentations. Over 80% of the people who believed the OCT or were unsure at the beginning did not believe the OCT at the end. You can believe that or not. I don't care. Come to a presentation and see for yourself.

Not good enough and quite pathetic. More false claims with no backup, what a surprise.

 

[stateofgrace]

There is no hard data but someone did the math using the show of hands at a number of presentations. Over 80% of the people who believed the OCT or were unsure at the beginning did not believe the OCT at the end. You can believe that or not. I don't care. Come to a presentation and see for yourself.

So you lied when you stated that the majority of engineers and architects believed him when they heard his presentation. The show of hands proves nothing, you do not even know who these people are, yet you made the claim.

You don't care because, you sir are an unqualified, uneducated, unashamed liar, welcome back to ignore.