29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

Seeing how the timeline tfk quoted says it took over six seconds between the collapse of the penthouse and the north facade, I'll have to check this. Also, the term freefall, when used by NIST in this context cannot possibly be taken to mean exact freefall, since this is only possible in a perfect vacuum. No engineer would take it that way.

Wrong. The difference between free fall acceleration in a vacuum and in air is negligible in the first few seconds. No engineer has come forward, giving their real name and credentials, and denied that NIST has confirmed and published the data demonstrating free fall acceleration. The claims by people here that they are architects and engineers are worthless without proof in the form of a degree and license.

 

[hokie]

C7 you're rather emphatic for someone that admits having no expertise in this field. Does that make your claims worthless?

Interesting how you purposely misquote people and misrepresent the NIST report -- again!

 

[twinstead]

C7 you're rather emphatic for someone that admits having no expertise in this field. Does that make your claims worthless?

It certainly does. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right, Chris? Chris might as well be my barber or plumber making incredulous, ridiculous claims that are contrary to most experts' opinions, in a most arrogant and contemptuous way. Frankly I could simply care less what he says.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Wrong. The difference between free fall acceleration in a vacuum and in air is negligible in the first few seconds. No engineer has come forward, giving their real name and credentials, and denied that NIST has confirmed and published the data demonstrating free fall acceleration. The claims by people here that they are architects and engineers are worthless without proof in the form of a degree and license.

Exactly, and if the acceleration is, say, 5 percent less, that's also a negligible difference in this context. But a 5 percent reduction in acceleration dissipates a lot of energy. More than enough to shred a building to pieces. So how much is the difference? Got numbers?

 

[The Platypus]

Ya, why should we listen to experts, that's silly, when delusional cult minions are much better sources of information!

 

[GlennB]

Chris,

One of us, and ONLY one of us, knows what he is talking about here. The other one is struggling to interpret what NIST is saying, is pulling phrases out of disparate sections and trying to string them together in a way that makes sense.

Funnily enough, earlier I double-checked the words "pastiche" and "collage" to best describe this copy+paste technique of Chris's.

 

[twinstead]

Funnily enough, earlier I double-checked the words "pastiche" and "collage" to best describe this copy+paste technique of Chris's.

Isn't a pastiche when one gets some pistachio ice cream on his mustache?

 

[GlennB]

Isn't a pastiche when one gets some pistachio ice cream on his mustache?

I shaved off my moustache to save wasting ice-cream, and pistachio is my fave. Easy choice in the end. No regrets.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

One of us, and ONLY one of us, knows what he is talking about here.

Ya got that part right.

The other one is struggling to interpret what NIST is saying, is pulling phrases out of disparate sections and trying to string them together in a way that makes sense.

That's you. I posted a time line using the data from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247]
I have told you this several times but you keep ignoring it. The time line is correct.
Your babbling at length about another time line is just a diversion from free fall.

I also posted the conformation of free fall acceleration on page 45 of 1A. You keep trying to deny it.

I see that my simply saying that I've got a mechanical engineering degree, 35 years experience & taught this stuff in college was not enough to get you exercise a modicum of caution. Even if technical respect was too much to ask.

Your claim is worthless without verification.

Look at NCSTAR1-9, vol 2, Figure 12-77, page 603, (pdf pg. 265)
This is the graph that you are insisting shows that "the north face descended at free fall acceleration".
It does NOT say that the building "fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for THE FIRST 8 stories (105 ft)".

It says free fall acceleration occurred in stage 2.
Page 602
"For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in Figure 12-77"
"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.

Next, do you see that "-44.773" number, Chris. That number tells you INSTANTLY that what you have been assuming (that it fell at G for the FIRST 105 feet)

Wrong! I have only quoted NIST.

Free fall acceleration occurred between 1.75s and 4s.

All your double talk, obfuscation and misinterpretation of what I have posted won't work.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

 

[Christopher7]

Ya, why should we listen to 29 experts when delusional cult minions at JREF are much better sources of information!

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Shalamar]

Fixed that for ya.

So why do you not wish to listen to the experts on this site, who are posting in this very thread? At least one of them has had his information and expertise verified by the mods on the board.

However, I should be fair.

Chris, what is your architectural and engineering expertise? The mods on the JREF would be happy to verify it for you, and keep your personal information secret.

 

[Christopher7]

Exactly, and if the acceleration is, say, 5 percent less, that's also a negligible difference in this context. But a 5 percent reduction in acceleration dissipates a lot of energy. More than enough to shred a building to pieces. So how much is the difference? Got numbers?

It wasn't 5% less.

Why can't you accept the fact that NIST has confirmed David Chandler's finding that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?

 

[H'ethetheth]

It says free fall acceleration occurred in stage 2.
Page 602
"For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in Figure 12-77"
"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.

Wrong! I have only quoted NIST.

Free fall acceleration occurred between 1.75s and 4s.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

Okay, so what is the point? The acceleration of the last standing remnants of the building was not significantly different from g over the first 30 m. What are we to conclude from this? If structural engineers would think this is impossible for a highly unstable collapsing structure, don't you think someone would have said something about it? Or, if they wanted to cover something up, don't you think they chose about the stupidest way to do it?

 

[funk de fino]

He did not explain away the fact that

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration"

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

9-1 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250] "the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7."

repeat this cause you missed it.

I have bolded the relevants parts that C7 does not like to see or read. he cherrypicks and does not understand what is written on a page.

What is your qualification C7?

You are lying about what it says on page 45.

 

[H'ethetheth]

It wasn't 5% less.

Why can't you accept the fact that NIST has confirmed David Chandler's finding that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?

Yes yes, I've read it now. It was apparently indistinguishable from g in the video footage. I don't see any error bars though. But I also notice that it was indeed only the facade that fell. The back of the building had been steadily collapsing since well before the penthouse went down to break the building's back, or guts.

 

[Christopher7]

So why do you not wish to listen to the experts on this site, who are posting in this very thread? At least one of them has had his information and expertise verified by the mods on the board.

There is no verification that they are what they claim to be. One anonymous person says he gave his credentials to another anonymous person for verification. No sale.

Chris, what is your architectural and engineering expertise? The mods on the JREF would be happy to verify it for you, and keep your personal information secret.

The ability to read and understand the key points in the NIST report is all that is necessary. Your appeal to unverifiable authority is worthless and expertise in not necessary to understand that

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

You all cannot deal with this inconvenient fact so you persist in tap dancing arround it.

 

[Shalamar]

There is no verification that they are what they claim to be. One anonymous person says he gave his credentials to another anonymous person for verification. No sale.

Yet they are what they claim to be.

The ability to read and understand the key points in the NIST report is all that is necessary. Your appeal to unverifiable authority is worthless and expertise in not necessary to understand that

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

You all cannot deal with this inconvenient fact so you persist in tap dancing arround it.

Excellent! What are your engineering credentials to come to such a conclusion?

 

[funk de fino]

The ability to read and understand the key points in the NIST report is all that is necessary..

Yet you have proved you cannot even do this simple task. Your reading comprehension sucks big dogs.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There is no verification that they are what they claim to be. One anonymous person says he gave his credentials to another anonymous person for verification. No sale.

But you trust an anonymous guy on the internet who not only claims his name is Richard Gage and is an architect, but also claims that he has verified credentials of other anonymous people?

 

[Christopher7]

Yes yes, I've read it now. It was apparently indistinguishable from g in the video footage.

Correct.

I don't see any error bars though. But I also notice that it was indeed only the facade that fell. The back of the building had been steadily collapsing since well before the penthouse went down to break the building's back, or guts.

Wrong.

9-1 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
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.