29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[FineWine]

On the contrary, these people are qualified to understand that the Trade Towers and WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.

Your adding the fall of the east penthouse to the free fall time clearly shows that you do not understand the concept of free fall or when it occurred. NIST admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. You have not the intelligence to understand this.

You are laughable. Kamal Obeid is an expert in these matters and you are not. You are the one hand waving an expert and claiming to know more.

I saw the "degree" you posted. You are not an engineer.
Please post the names of the engineers who don't agree with Richard Gage and why they don't agree.

Actually, I have spoken to many structural engineers and architects about this. Most agree with Richard Gage. The few who don't, refuse to acknowledge or discuss the facts and cowardly hide behind the "conspiracy theory" mantra.

You've been caught lying again. You have not discussed anything with "many" structural engineers and architects. You are a typical "truther," impervious to facts and incapable of learning.

 

[tfk]

...
You demand structural engineers because architects are not qualified to understand the structural details and then claim to know more about structure than they do.

.

This post suggests that you do not understand the different job functions of architects & structural engineers.

Do you think that you do?

tom

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

How long has it been, Chris? And you are still confused about timelines?

For the REAL EVENTS, go to NCSTAR1-9, Vol 1., Section 5.7.4, Pg 273 (pdf pg 317), and the summary Table 5-3, pg 290 (pdf page 334).

You'll note that ALL TIMES are "INDEXED TO" the start of the descent of the east penthouse. This gives a solid external reference point. (time defined as 0.00 seconds). (This reference is used & reinforced in all images that give a time that says "... XX seconds after east penthouse began to move downward".)

It says that the START of the global collapse of the north wall STARTED 6.9 seconds AFTER this 0.00 time. And it says that the upper portion disappeared from view 13.5 seconds after t=0.00 sec.

The start of the REAL collapse is not visible externally. So you have to figure it out by modeling.

Go to Table 12-2 page 599 (pdf page 261) of NCSTAR1-9 Vol 2.

Distinguish between MODEL time and REAL (i.e., "Observation") Time. To identify what really happened, use "observation time".

The modeling suggests that the real collapse started approximately MINUS 6 seconds (i.e., before t = 0.00). This is the BEST estimate of the REAL start of the collapse of the building.

Adding in the 6 seconds before the east penthouse collapse, the external wall started to collapse approximately 12.9 seconds (6.0 + 6.9 seconds) after the REAL start of the building collapse.

And the roofline disappears at about 19.5 seconds after the real collapse start. And the collapse is STILL not finished.

You don't have here any number for the total collapse time, because the roofline is hidden by dust & debris cloud.

Does that clarify things?

The total collapse is measured from when column 79 starts to collapse. It takes OVER 19.5 seconds.

tom

That was admirably lucid, concise, and absolutely irrefutable.

It'll be ignored in a frenzy of panicky arm-waving, of course... but: I thought somebody ought to tell you so, nonetheless.

 

[beachnut]

...I saw the "degree" you posted. You are not an engineer.
Please post the names of the engineers who don't agree with Richard Gage and why they don't agree.

You have no engineers who agree with Gage. Zero.

I am an engineer and you paid for my degree; thank your very much.

The great part about 911 is your ideas on 911 are so stupid you don't need a degree to see you are making up and repeating lies.

Here are the moronic ideas of one of your x-perts.

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

What a dork he can't figure out the correct overall timing. Failure is the 29 people from the OP who spew moronic ideas on 911. No evidence, just talk.

Ronald H. Brookman," ... Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 ... It was not ... engulfed in any fire. "

WTC7 engulfed in fire. LOL what a dolt. You would think he would try to research WTC7 before spewing moronic lies.

Fire in WTC7 and your x-pert has failed. You pick the dumbest people to follow. Stop being so gullible not a single x-pert you have did any significant research. They are frauds; all of them. Would x-pert Brookman go into the building? What a bunch of lies from 29 frauds.

... You are laughable. Kamal Obeid is an expert in these matters and you are not. You are the one hand waving an expert and claiming to know more. ...

Prove it. Show me his work proving his statements. You can't all his statements are pure poppycock. Thanks again for sending me to college and grad school so I could have a masters in engineering to have something to think about when I flew jets for the USAF. You better read what your experts said, because they have done as much, maybe less, work on 911 as you have. They offer zero calculations and zero evidence.

 

[triforcharity]

Why do you give a damn about the opinions just because they come from "experts" at NIST? Blind faith in scientific reports from an administration that systematically distorts scientific reports is not warranted or wise.

T.A.M. claimed that the people on the list he provided were "Expert who OPENLY support the official account of 9/11:

One says just the opposite and none have been quoted as endorsing the Final report.

Why would they need to be quoted as believing the official report. THEY FREAKING WROTE IT!!!!!!!!!!! Why would they need to say, Yes, I endorse this, if they SIGNED THEIR NAMES AT THE BOTTOM!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[twinstead]

Why would they need to be quoted as believing the official report. THEY FREAKING WROTE IT!!!!!!!!!!! Why would they need to say, Yes, I endorse this, if they SIGNED THEIR NAMES AT THE BOTTOM!?!?!?!?!?!

It's just a simple debate tactic to deal with the fact so many real experts have no problem with the report.

 

[Christopher7]

You've been caught lying again. You have not discussed anything with "many" structural engineers and architects. You are a typical "truther," impervious to facts and incapable of learning.

You have nary a clue who I talk to so you are lying. You are a typical denier impervious to facts and incapable of learning.

 

[FineWine]

You have nary a clue who I talk to so you are lying. You are a typical denier impervious to facts and incapable of learning.

You show up on one thread after another raving nonsense. You never know what you're talking about. You pretend that you talk to engineers, who never have names, but real engineers reject the idiocy you peddle. There is a reason why nobody who works in the demolition industry swallows your snake oil. It's 2009 and you have absolutely nothing. Haven't you ignored a few too many wake-up calls?

 

[A W Smith]

a basking shark in a sea of ignorance

You have nary a clue who I talk to so you are lying. You are a typical denier impervious to facts and incapable of learning.

Name them, Or show us their hands.

 

[triforcharity]

Typical denial word games. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. The videos are the proof of this.

So what?

You define building as any part of the building in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. You are fooling no one but the deniers club.

Hey, if the penthouse began to fal before the rest, do you think that maybe, just maybe, this MIGHT have something to do with the entire building falling to the earth?? You think that it had NO BEARING WHATSOEVER??? Come on now, think about this logically. The penthouse was the first part of the collapse of the building. You saay so what. So its NOT part of the building?? Its is its own free-standing building?? Or was it up there by itself LEVITATING??? Come on. I am no architect, or PE, but I do know a thing or two about fire and their effects on buildings.

 

[Christopher7]

.This post suggests that you do not understand the different job functions of architects & structural engineers.
Do you think that you do?
tom

Yes. However, this thread is not about me, it's about this article:
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

'Architect' was kind enough to point out to the resident OCT defenders that architects must take courses in structures and fire engineering. Had I said that, you would not believe it.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris,

Firefighters also have to take courses in structural construction. Why do you think that is?? Maybe so they will know how certain building act when exposed to fire?? Yeah, that might have something to do with it.

 

[Christopher7]

You show up on one thread after another raving nonsense.

You-all consider facts like "WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet" to be raving nonsense.

You never know what you're talking about.

Quite the contrary, I reference facts in the NIST report that debunk the NIST report.

You pretend that you talk to engineers,

You don't know who I talk to.

There is a reason why nobody who works in the demolition industry swallows your snake oil.

Wrong.
Attempted subject shift noted.

It's 2009 and you have absolutely nothing.

Only to those in absolute denial of the facts presented. Did I mention that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?

 

[The Platypus]

Yes. However, this thread is not about me, it's about this article:
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

'Architect' was kind enough to point out to the resident OCT defenders that architects must take courses in structures and fire engineering. Had I said that, you would not believe it.

OCT?? LOL Gee nobody will catch on to that pathetic attempt at reverse psychology...

 

[A W Smith]

You-all consider facts like "WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet" to be raving nonsense.

Only to those in absolute denial of the facts presented. Did I mention that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?

Still basking in your ignorance Sarns?

How long has it been, Chris? And you are still confused about timelines?

For the REAL EVENTS, go to NCSTAR1-9, Vol 1., Section 5.7.4, Pg 273 (pdf pg 317), and the summary Table 5-3, pg 290 (pdf page 334).

You'll note that ALL TIMES are "INDEXED TO" the start of the descent of the east penthouse. This gives a solid external reference point. (time defined as 0.00 seconds). (This reference is used & reinforced in all images that give a time that says "... XX seconds after east penthouse began to move downward".)

It says that the START of the global collapse of the north wall STARTED 6.9 seconds AFTER this 0.00 time. And it says that the upper portion disappeared from view 13.5 seconds after t=0.00 sec.

The start of the REAL collapse is not visible externally. So you have to figure it out by modeling.

Go to Table 12-2 page 599 (pdf page 261) of NCSTAR1-9 Vol 2.

Distinguish between MODEL time and REAL (i.e., "Observation") Time. To identify what really happened, use "observation time".

The modeling suggests that the real collapse started approximately MINUS 6 seconds (i.e., before t = 0.00). This is the BEST estimate of the REAL start of the collapse of the building.

Adding in the 6 seconds before the east penthouse collapse, the external wall started to collapse approximately 12.9 seconds (6.0 + 6.9 seconds) after the REAL start of the building collapse.

And the roofline disappears at about 19.5 seconds after the real collapse start. And the collapse is STILL not finished.

You don't have here any number for the total collapse time, because the roofline is hidden by dust & debris cloud.

Does that clarify things?

The total collapse is measured from when column 79 starts to collapse. It takes OVER 19.5 seconds.

tom

 

[Christopher7]

Why would they need to be quoted as believing the official report. THEY FREAKING WROTE IT!!!!!!!!!!! Why would they need to say, Yes, I endorse this, if they SIGNED THEIR NAMES AT THE BOTTOM!?!?!?!?!?!

They did NOT sign their names at the bottom, they were listed as contributors to the report. Shyam Sunder and 12 others were listed as the authors at the beginning of the report.

 

[The Platypus]

They did NOT sign their names at the bottom, they were listed as contributors to the report. Shyam Sunder and 12 others were listed as the authors at the beginning of the report.

Blah blah blah, Dude, seriously, you aren't fooling anyone with this idea that your cult somehow has overwhelming expert support, no matter how much you keep trying.

It's not a secret that you are just a fringe group cult. We are all aware that all your tiny cult does is spew nonsense and lies and tries to support it with nothing but arrogance, lies, juvenile attacks, lame threats and fear tactics, constant self projection and a bag snake oil salesman tactics. That's why the MSM ignores you. That's why the scientific community, engineering community, demolition community, and others all ignore you.

The vast majority of experts have not accepted your nonsense and do not agree with your cult, and the vast majority of people do not agree with you either. That's why so many people laugh at you. That's why you are called minions, twoofers, toothers, delusional, kooks, nutjobs, liars, brainwashed and such, all the time.

That's how it is. Face it and learn to cope.

 

[stateofgrace]

How long has it been, Chris? And you are still confused about timelines?

For the REAL EVENTS, go to NCSTAR1-9, Vol 1., Section 5.7.4, Pg 273 (pdf pg 317), and the summary Table 5-3, pg 290 (pdf page 334).

You'll note that ALL TIMES are "INDEXED TO" the start of the descent of the east penthouse. This gives a solid external reference point. (time defined as 0.00 seconds). (This reference is used & reinforced in all images that give a time that says "... XX seconds after east penthouse began to move downward".)

It says that the START of the global collapse of the north wall STARTED 6.9 seconds AFTER this 0.00 time. And it says that the upper portion disappeared from view 13.5 seconds after t=0.00 sec.

The start of the REAL collapse is not visible externally. So you have to figure it out by modeling.

Go to Table 12-2 page 599 (pdf page 261) of NCSTAR1-9 Vol 2.

Distinguish between MODEL time and REAL (i.e., "Observation") Time. To identify what really happened, use "observation time".

The modeling suggests that the real collapse started approximately MINUS 6 seconds (i.e., before t = 0.00). This is the BEST estimate of the REAL start of the collapse of the building.

Adding in the 6 seconds before the east penthouse collapse, the external wall started to collapse approximately 12.9 seconds (6.0 + 6.9 seconds) after the REAL start of the building collapse.

And the roofline disappears at about 19.5 seconds after the real collapse start. And the collapse is STILL not finished.

You don't have here any number for the total collapse time, because the roofline is hidden by dust & debris cloud.

Does that clarify things?

The total collapse is measured from when column 79 starts to collapse. It takes OVER 19.5 seconds.

tom

Thank you Tom, precise, clear, to the point and of course completely ignored.

 

[dropzone]

'Architect' was kind enough to point out to the resident OCT defenders that architects must take courses in structures and fire engineering.

When I studied Engineering 30 years ago I was told that architects had an "out" on every drawing that claimed something like, "If this buidling collapses, it it the fault of the engineers, contractors, or anybody but the architect." In those three decades in the biz I've NOT found such a codicil, but I have dealt with a multitude of architects and I'm professionally inclined to believe that clause is tacit, much like the "If these things do not fit together, etc," claim of engineers.

Though I'd be glad (HONEST!) to find an architect that did NOT dismiss any questions that required the d*mn building FUNCTION as a building (we drafters are the last stop before the guys in the shop question both our sanity and our professionalism), in my sad experience I'd pause for but a moment before sending him my resume. Or wonder at his sanity. (shrug) Pay's the same. It's just longer between when you are fired.

 

[triforcharity]

They did NOT sign their names at the bottom, they were listed as contributors to the report. Shyam Sunder and 12 others were listed as the authors at the beginning of the report.

Because they lead the investigation. Do you really think that those guys just "took the others at their word"? No. I would be willing to bet they checked facts, checked math, and checked their work. Plus, not to mention anything that waas presented to them as fact had to have their name on it somewhere, right??? Right.

Even as a firefighter, I have to sign reports. Those reports are then forwarded to my LT, who signs it, who then forewards it to the chief, and HE signs it. So, your saying that if I put something false into my report, it will never be found to be false?? That's assinine at best sir.

Please go back to your coloring books.