29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[tfk]

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.

All right.

How do you go about giving your credentials to the mods for confirmation?

tom

 

[Alt+F4]

Tell me how WTC 7 could fall at free fall acceleration.

Same as how a pizza box fall through a garbage shoot.

 

[FineWine]

What part of

"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit"

don't you understand?

The time line you are referring to does not articulate what happened during the horizontal collapse. Please read [FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247][/FONT] for a complete description of the collapse sequence starting with the collapse of column 79 and ending just before the beginning of 'global collapse'.

If you can't figure that out for yourself, you know nothing about the laws of physics.

But you demonstrate constantly that, with the exception of Bill Smith, nobody here knows less about physics than you. Your total lack of understanding doesn't stop you from raving mindlessly. Couldn't you have at least attempted to read tfk's post?

 

[H'ethetheth]

What part of

"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit"

don't you understand?

Okay so here's the thing. Let's say we have a building weighing a lot, and its support structure (hint: the colums) are not connected to eachother over the full footprint of the building and between at least floors 7 and 14, and the core is already falling.
Now say these colums have got about a percent of their original load bearing capacity after buckling. The building on top will then have a force acting upon it of mg(1-0.01), causing it to fall at 0.99g for over 7 floors. Sound familiar? Now some guy films this with a shaky camera, at a resolution of several feet per pixel, and another guy tries to give his best estimate of when one pixel displays the building or doesn't as the visible part moves down.

The time line you are referring to does not articulate what happened during the horizontal collapse. Please read [FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247][/FONT] for a complete description of the collapse sequence starting with the collapse of column 79 and ending just before the beginning of 'global collapse'.

No that level of detail is not needed. The report says literally that the support structure of the building was non-existent over 7 floors as the north facade started to descend.

If you can't figure that out for yourself, you know nothing about the laws of physics.

Nice dodge, I'm asking for your opinion.
What about the engineers who wrote this down? Are they too stupid to realize it's impossible, or too stupid to cover up a conspiracy?

 

[Christopher7]

But you demonstrate constantly that, with the exception of Bill Smith, nobody here knows less about physics than you.

Are you saying that WTC 7 could fall at free fall acceleration and crush the columns below at the same time?

Couldn't you have at least attempted to read tfk's post?

I read it. He uses verbiage to obfuscate the fact that

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

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

But you demonstrate constantly that, with the exception of Bill Smith, nobody here knows less about physics than you.

Why am I suddenly struck with the mental image of two power forwards from opposing all-midget basketball teams, warily circling one another...?

 

[H'ethetheth]

...and because I was curious at how good my estimate of 1% remaining load bearing capacity was, I looked it up. The loadbearing capacity of a beam under compression is proportional to the inverse square of the unsupported length, and decreases under eccentric loads. Now, an unsupported length of 7 floors, as opposed to 1, leads to a 7² = 49-fold decrease in the loadbearing capacity. That gets us down to 2%. Then we have eccentric loads all over the place, what with crashing penthouses and load distributions, so a 1% load bearing capacity is not far fetched at all. So I guess it comes down to error margins on pixel counting now.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Are you saying that WTC 7 could fall at free fall acceleration and crush the columns below at the same time?

No. The columns buckled because they had no lateral support. They moved out of the way until the top part hit the bottom part.
Have you ever tried the following?
Take a 33cl soda can. Step onto it carefully, it will most probably hold your weight. then dent the can, and see how fast you fall. I wouldn't be surprised if you will fall at as good as g for the first 15% of the way down.

 

[George 152]

Are you saying that WTC 7 could fall at free fall acceleration and crush the columns below at the same time?

I read it. He uses verbiage to obfuscate the fact that

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

Impossible.
How could a crushing structure accelerate to 'free fall' speed?
Are you now claiming jet or rocket motors drove the building toward the ground ?

 

[Christopher7]

What part of

"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit"

don't you understand?

Okay so here's the thing. Let's say we have a building weighing a lot, and its support structure (hint: the colums) are not connected to eachother over the full footprint of the building

The exterior columns were intact except for 7 on the south west side.

and between at least floors 7 and 14, and the core is already falling.

The core was pulling the exterior columns inward as it fell according to NIST.

Now say these colums have got about a percent of their original load bearing capacity after buckling.

The the weight of the core area has been transferred to the exterior columns.

The building on top will then have a force acting upon it of mg(1-0.01), causing it to fall at 0.99g for over 7 floors. Sound familiar? Now some guy films this with a shaky camera[wrong], at a resolution of several feet per pixel, and another guy tries to give his best estimate of when one pixel displays the building or doesn't as the visible part moves down.

Give it up. NIST verrified David Chandlers data. You are lying about the camera being shakey in a desperate attempt to deny that statement of fact in the NIST report.

No that level of detail is not needed. The report says literally that the support structure of the building was non-existent over 7 floors as the north facade started to descend.

Double talk. The floor beams were pulling the exterior walls in on all floors above the collapse zone. The load was transferred to the exterior columns. 50 exterior columns had to be crushed or pulled/pushed out of the way.

Let's look at the "Physics based model" NIST has provided.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

Note that the horizontal collapse across floors 7 - 14 doesn't happen.

Houston, we have a problem!

 

[FineWine]

Are you saying that WTC 7 could fall at free fall acceleration and crush the columns below at the same time?

I read it. He uses verbiage to obfuscate the fact that

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

Do you ever get bored? I'm serious. World Trade Center 7 was not blown up. There were no explosives used anywhere in the WTC complex. Your conspiracy is imaginary. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

You waste your time arguing with people who design buildings for a living and you can't begin to understand what they're trying to explain to you. You have no idea what you're claiming. There isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about your "free-fall acceleration" nonsense. You simply have to come to terms with the FACT that the crapola you fabricate to keep yourself hooked on your silly delusions doesn't impress anybody who knows the subject.

You don't know the subject, and you refuse to learn.

 

[Christopher7]

Impossible.
How could a crushing structure accelerate to 'free fall' speed?

It can't.

Are you now claiming jet or rocket motors drove the building toward the ground ?

No

 

[FineWine]

It can't.
No

Try reading tfk's post # 417. I'm not an engineer, but he takes you by the hand and leads you through the explanation so deftly that you end up actually knowing something. Wouldn't it be nice--just once!--to know something? He really does explain your free-fall nonsense. Trust me.

 

[Christopher7]

There isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about your the NIST acknowledgement of "free-fall acceleration" nonsense.

Dude Are you saying there isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about the NIST verification "free-fall acceleration" ?

 

[FineWine]

Dude Are you saying there isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about the NIST verification "free-fall acceleration" ?

I am saying that a real engineer provided you, free of charge, with a lucid explanation, and you refuse to make any attempt to understand it. You keep raving mindlessly, but you don't know anything. It's painfully obvious. Read tfk's post and attempt to comment on it intelligently. He manages to make technical matters understandable to a layperson. Set aside your unjustified arrogance and try to learn. You are not his peer. Let him be your teacher.

 

[Christopher7]

Try reading tfk's post # 417. I'm not an engineer, but he takes you by the hand and leads you through the explanation so deftly that you end up actually knowing something. Wouldn't it be nice--just once!--to know something? He really does explain your free-fall nonsense. Trust me.

It's NOT "MY" free fall.

That is just a pathetic attempt to deny what NIST has confirmed. Give it up.

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

This is an established fact. Deal with it.

 

[FineWine]

It's NOT "MY" free fall.

That is just a pathetic attempt to deny what NIST has confirmed. Give it up.

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

This is an established fact. Deal with it.

What is this--your Ultima1 impression? A real engineer dealt with it. You couldn't understand him. Try harder.

 

[Christopher7]

I am saying that a real engineer provided you, free of charge, with a lucid explanation

That has nothing to do with the question which is:

Are you saying there isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about the NIST verification of "free-fall acceleration" ?

 

[BigAl]

That has nothing to do with the question which is:

Are you saying there isn't a real engineer in the world who gives a damn about the NIST verification of "free-fall acceleration" ?

Here's one

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4842283#post4842283​

 

[Christopher7]

What is this--your Ultima1 impression? A real engineer dealt with it. You couldn't understand him. Try harder.

If nothing else, you guys are consistent. You will not acknowledge that

NIST verified free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

Do you have the honesty and integrity to acknowledge this fact or will you continue to side step it?