• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

Yes dear, but the 'global' collapse is when the entire building is falling. The free fall acceleration has been documented and 'peer reviewed' by none other than NIST itself. Your inability to understand this simple fact has left you befuddled.

Whatever. The Penthouse falling is one of the things that precipitated the global collapse. The "free fall" once global collapse initiated doesn't make the collapse suspicious. Only members of your delightful tiny cult think that.

As far as I am concerned, you'd better come up with a theory that fits the available evidence better than this. Until then you can arrogantly claim you "have it all figured out" as much as you want.
 
Yes dear, but the 'global' collapse is when the entire building is falling. The free fall acceleration has been documented and 'peer reviewed' by none other than NIST itself. Your inability to understand this simple fact has left you befuddled.

"Global" collapse took over 15 seconds; if you could do physics you would not be a true believer of lies, moronic hearsay, idiotic conclusions, and dirt dumb delusions. Hint: Over 15 seconds is not close to free fall.

There were no explosives or nano-thermite to do the WTC7 collapse, just fire.
 
Not just silence. As you've pointed out to us in the past, the NIST findings have served as the underpinnings for code upgrades worldwide. That rises to the level of active acceptance in my book; anyone who designs with the relevant codes in mind is utilizing the knowledge NIST generated.
None of the code changes involve the structural elements NIST sites as the cause of the collapse. Therefore, your contention that these code changes constitute acceptance of the NIST collapse hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, just the opposite is true. The total absence of code changes to prevent a similar collapse is an acknowledgement that structural changes are not needed.
 
Not just silence. As you've pointed out to us in the past, the NIST findings have served as the underpinnings for code upgrades worldwide. That rises to the level of active acceptance in my book; anyone who designs with the relevant codes in mind is utilizing the knowledge NIST generated.
With a number of notable projects whose designs studied extensively the failures of the towers. The CCTV Mandarine Oriental by Arup of particular significance, since the lessons were not only applied, but were tested.

Courtesy of AE911truth.info for easy access to the article:

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf
Arup’s response to the World Trade Center
disaster was swift, establishing an Extreme Events
Mitigation Task Force charged with evaluating the
risks of disasters similar to those that have taken
place in recent years, analysing the technical
challenges they represent and developing design
solutions to address them. With typical zeal, and
chaired by the late Tony Fitzpatrick, then chairman
of Arup’s Americas region, the task force mobilised
the might of the firm’s in-house research and
development capabilities and specialist teams on
tall buildings, fire, materials, structural analysis and
other disciplines to see what lessons could be
learnt from the World Trade Centre disaster.
Under the direction of a single project director,
the task force continues to play a critical role in
the operation of facilities when unplanned or
unanticipated events occur. Arup makes full use
of its multidisciplinary fire, risk, security, information
technology, telecommunications and systems
skills to amass a rapid understanding of the threats
and risks faced by the client. Based on this,
the task force assesses reasonable risks and
develops additional mitigating measures to address
exceptional scenarios, where appropriate. Client
requirements and cost-effectiveness are also taken
into account in the overall design solution.
Despite the catastrophic events and subsequent
uncertainty surrounding the future of tall buildings
in relation to safety, the industry has continued to
grow to be as mighty as the buildings themselves.
In fact, there are more tall buildings on drawing
boards now than ever before, making this one battle
in which technology has triumphed over terrorism.

If these changes weren't necessary in the eyes of the world wide engineering community then it's something they wouldn't be silent about.
 
With a number of notable projects whose designs studied extensively the failures of the towers. The CCTV Mandarine Oriental by Arup of particular significance, since the lessons were not only applied, but were tested.

Courtesy of AE911truth.info for easy access to the article:

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf


If these changes weren't necessary in the eyes of the world wide engineering community then it's something they wouldn't be silent about.

Precisely. The code changes would be protested, as they impact design and (as best as I can tell) add cost (Architect, if he's willing, can elaborate or correct me on that for us). The absence of such protests are telling.
 
"Global" collapse took over 15 seconds;
You do not understand what they mean by 'global'. If you had actually read the report, you would know that the 'global collapse' means the entire building and that started approximately 8.3 seconds after the east penthouse started to fall.

Time line using data from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247]
-1.3s Column 79 failed [Group 1]
-0.5s Column 80 fails [Group 1]
-0.5s Column 66 fails [Group 8]
~0.0s Column 81 fails [Group 1]
0.0s Kink in penthouse visible
1.3s Columns 77 & 78 failing [Group 2]
2.5s Columns 77 & 78 fail [Group 2]
3.5s Column 76 fails [Group 2]
4.3s Columns 59, 62, 65 & 68 fail [Group 7] G6 & G8 loading
4.5s Columns 73 - 75 fail [Group 3]
5.3s Columns 60, 63 and 69 fail [Group 8]
5.3s Column 58 failed [Group 6]
5.5s Group 3 still failing
6.3s Columns 70 - 72 failing [Group 4]
6.3s Columns 61, 64 and 67 failed [Group 6]
[FONT=&quot]At this time all the interior columns had buckled. [/FONT]

9-1 Vol.2 pg 586 [pdf 248]
After the horizontal progression of the column buckling in the core of WTC 7, the exterior columns buckled at the lower floors, completing the global collapse as follows:

Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s.
When all the exterior columns had buckled, as shown in Figure 12-62, the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7.

6.3 + 2 = 8.3 seconds


Your attempt to deny free fall acceleration, despite the fact that NIST has acknowledged it happened, is proof that you will not accept anything that proves the OCT is a farce.
 
With a number of notable projects whose designs studied extensively the failures of the towers. The CCTV Mandarine Oriental by Arup of particular significance, since the lessons were not only applied, but were tested.

Courtesy of AE911truth.info for easy access to the article:

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf


If these changes weren't necessary in the eyes of the world wide engineering community then it's something they wouldn't be silent about.
What were the changes?
The recommendations I have seen were about stairwells and insulation, not structural. Please show where structural change recommendations from the NIST report have been mandated or implemented.

What structural changes have been recommended as a result of the collapse of WTC 7?
 
What were the changes?
The recommendations I have seen were about stairwells and insulation, not structural. Please show where structural change recommendations from the NIST report have been mandated or implemented.

What structural changes have been recommended as a result of the collapse of WTC 7?

you understand the egress is a big part of what they design for
its not to keep the building standing
its to make it strong enough to last long enough to make evacuation possible
well designed stairwells help move more people with efficiency

its about people not structures

building 7 did an amazing job of standing for as long as it did
as did towers 1 and 2 considering what they went through
they saved TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES
 
Last edited:
Your attempt to deny free fall acceleration, despite the fact that NIST has acknowledged it happened, is proof that you will not accept anything that proves the OCT is a farce.

So you support your thesis that the "OCT" is a farce by citing evidence from one of the defining documents of the "OCT"?

How deranged does one need to be to not recognize that as wildly idiotic?

Maybe next you can establish participation of the MSM in the 9/11 cover-up by citing a New York Times article. :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact: Stundied.
 
Last edited:
So you support your thesis that the "OCT" is a farce by citing evidence from one of the defining documents of the "OCT"?
Yes

How deranged does one need to be to not recognize that as wildly idiotic?
It is indeed ironic but not idiotic.
Idiotic is the hypothesis that the failure of a single column could cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper.
 
Last edited:
you understand the egress is a big part of what they design for its not to keep the building standing its to make it strong enough to last long enough to make evacuation possible well designed stairwells help move more people with efficiency
its about people not structures
Precisely my point. There were NO recommendations to prevent the thermal expansion or progressive collapse that supposedly occurred in WTC 7.
 
Precisely my point. There were NO recommendations to prevent the thermal expansion or progressive collapse that supposedly occurred in WTC 7.

better insulation would have slowed the process thereby giving more time for evacuations
WTC7 was beyond a "worse case scenario" pre 9/11 and it stood for 7 hours

heres what a post 9/11 skyscraper looks like
designed by your pal and mine, Mr Les Robertson :)
 
What were the changes?
The recommendations I have seen were about stairwells and insulation, not structural. Please show where structural change recommendations from the NIST report have been mandated or implemented.

What structural changes have been recommended as a result of the collapse of WTC 7?


I failed to bookmark it, but I have read a paper written by a structual engineer that said that cantilever beams, very rare as it is, will be even rarer in future construction.

The point of failure in WTC7 was a cantilever beam.
 
Precisely my point. There were NO recommendations to prevent the thermal expansion or progressive collapse that supposedly occurred in WTC 7.

Actually there were. Recommendations for analysis of thermal expansion and new fire load cases were added to ASCE7 (which, to make a long story short, is a building code) early in the revision process for the 2010 publication of ASCE7. This was because of the WTC7 collapse.

There was a huge fight over it and it was finally removed from the last top-level committee meeting. It ultimately came down to money. Building owners aren't willing to pay the additional fee (I'm talking several million dollars for a building the size of WTC7) for such a rare occurrence. Building owners are willing to accept that their building will be lost in an event where water is shut off for an entire city for 12 hours AND firefighters stop fighting. It's kind of a no-brainer.
 
You do not understand what they mean by 'global'. If you had actually read the report, you would know that the 'global collapse' means the entire building and that started approximately 8.3 seconds after the east penthouse started to fall.

Your attempt to deny free fall acceleration, despite the fact that NIST has acknowledged it happened, is proof that you will not accept anything that proves the OCT is a farce.
The East Penthous collapse was the first external sign of internal collapse. Which is indeed a neccesary factor into the collapse, regardless if NIST's figures refered to the ENTIRE buildings collapse or not. You can't disregard it as unimportant.
 
It is indeed ironic but not idiotic.
Idiotic is the hypothesis that the failure of a single column could cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper.

And yet the support for that theory comes from the very same document you've already cited as evidence for another claim. It seems you're content to mine the NIST report for data that supposedly supports your arguments, apparently accepting that data at face value, while simultaneously dismissing any and everything in the NIST report that conflicts with your predetermined conclusions. You are using the NIST report as evidence against the official version while at the same time hand-waving it away as the official version.

In what alternate universe do you imagine this makes a lick of sense?
 
I failed to bookmark it, but I have read a paper written by a structual engineer that said that cantilever beams, very rare as it is, will be even rarer in future construction.

The point of failure in WTC7 was a cantilever beam.

Cantilevered beams will always be common. Using a cantilevered beam as a transfer girder however is tough. I have a couple of two-story buildings in construction right now that have this feature in them (darn architects). But being so short, and not being federal buildings, it's not a problem.

Buildings that are targets, or buildings that house federal agents, have to be designed for a very specific blast scenario. This scenario includes the removal of any one column anywhere in the structure. It's next to impossible to get a stable load path for a column that was, but is no longer, supported by a cantilevered transfer girder.
 
Cantilevered beams will always be common. Using a cantilevered beam as a transfer girder however is tough. I have a couple of two-story buildings in construction right now that have this feature in them (darn architects). But being so short, and not being federal buildings, it's not a problem.

Buildings that are targets, or buildings that house federal agents, have to be designed for a very specific blast scenario. This scenario includes the removal of any one column anywhere in the structure. It's next to impossible to get a stable load path for a column that was, but is no longer, supported by a cantilevered transfer girder.
You sure you din't mean to write "just the other side of impossible" instead of "Next to impossible"?
 
What were the changes?
The recommendations I have seen were about stairwells and insulation, not structural. Please show where structural change recommendations from the NIST report have been mandated or implemented.

What structural changes have been recommended as a result of the collapse of WTC 7?

Revisions to, for example, the Eurocodes to introduce additional redundancy and help limit the risk of dispropportionate progressive collapse.

This has been dealt with before, in one of the (many) technical threads notable many by the absence of Truthers.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom