29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Justin39640]

so what did it do the rest of the 641 feet that it fell?

seeing that if leaned to the south seems the north face had more resistance

also on the nist video you posted earlier
its a great example of the deceptive edits "truth?"ers use
as thats one of their favorite angles that we have all see hundreds of times. but with the mysterious missing 10 seconds preceding and not cropped

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

 

[hokie]

Thanks C7 for not understanding the NIST report, misrepresenting the information, and failing to understand the well written description of an expert. Been great fun. Now why don't you go back to fairy tale land and do that independent investigation. No one is stopping you.

 

[Christopher7]

So Chris, What do you expect to find in this new investigation??

What caused the collapse.

What is going to happen if the new investigation agrees with everything that the NIST report does

An explanation of what actually caused the collapse would disagree with the NIST report.

So, what would this accomplish, OTHER than spending a metric TON of money on something, just because they can't explain one insignificant event?

Insignificant?

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks C7 for not understanding the NIST report,

Excuse me?

My understanding is that NIST confirmed free fall acceleration.

Do you understand that NIST confirmed free fall acceleration?

 

[BigAl]

What caused the collapse.

Protracted fire and lack of water for firefighting.

 

[tfk]

Chris,

There are two significant issues upon which we disagree. And a bunch of small stuff.

1. The difference between "falling at G" versus "falling near G".
2. The issue of timing.

I already dealt with the issue of "at G" vs. "near G". The fact that you don't believe it is immaterial.

Timing:

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 haven't ignored you. I've CORRECTED you.

One more time...

Look at NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, starting at pg 572 (pdf 234).
Just scan the headings forward to page 586.
NIST identifies FOUR time intervals.
1. Initial Local Failures for collapse initiation. (pg 572 - 574)
2. Vertical Progression of Failure (pg 575 - 578)
3. Horizontal Progression of Failure (pg. 579 - 585)
4. Global collapse (pg 586 - 588)

You are - BY YOUR OWN WORDS - considering ONLY pages 579 - 585.
Compare your page numbers with the page numbers above.

BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you are only considering the 3rd time intervals and ignoring the 1st, 2nd and 4th.
BY YOUR OWN WORDS, the Global collapse segment is not even contained in the section you are quoting.

Reference my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4841012
I told you (first 3 paragraphs) the same stuff there.

And you've blown NIST's clear explanation of the two reference times that they use.

Two timing reference frames are used when discussing global model results: a calculation reference frame and a collapse reference frame. ... The collapse reference time of 0.0 s starts ... at 16.0 s in the calculation reference time.
- NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, pg 572 (pdf 234)

In other words:
collapse reference time = calculation reference time - 16 seconds.
calculation reference time = collapse reference time + 16 seconds.

Got it yet??

Your claim [of credentials] is worthless without verification.

.
Being fixed.

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

More insults. Great. Yawwwn.

Go find someone that you trust that KNOWS math or physics. Chandler, if you want. Ask them to read my posts & tell you whether or not I've fudged, shaded or mis-presented the info in my posts.

You are simply not competent to make this judgment. And you delude yourself to the contrary.


Tom

 

[Christopher7]

so what did it do the rest of the 641 feet that it fell? seeing that if leaned to the south seems the north face had more resistance

There was NO resistance to the fall of the north face for 100 feet.

also on the nist video you posted earlier
its a great example of the deceptive edits "truth?"ers use
as thats one of their favorite angles that we have all see hundreds of times. but with the mysterious missing 10 seconds preceding and not cropped

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

May I direct your attention to the source of the video? Note that the URL includes nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos
[this is not a truther site]

The truncated video is a clear case of NIST hiding the truth about the result of their computer model. It was already distorting and did not match the collapse in the videos.

 

[TokenMac]

There was NO resistance to the fall of the north face for 100 feet.

I was about to ask you why you kept using two different quote from, different parts of the NIST report (one that mentions the north face and free fall [1A pg 45], and the other makes no mention of free fall but the whole building [9-1 Vol.2 pg 588] ), but it seems you now understand that the north face and the whole building are not the same thing.

Which might be why NIST said the north face and not the the whole building fell near free fall?
(just a guess)

 

[R.Mackey]

This whole argument really, really makes me laugh.

Think about it. What's being asserted here is the Truth Movement position that "free fall implies use of explosives." As in, any natural collapse cannot lead to any period of unobstructed collapse.

Well, if that's the case, then why did the "free fall" period not occur until two seconds into collapse?

There's two choices:

• The building started collapsing on its own, naturally, but then two seconds later They set off bombs to make it come down faster!

• The building started coming down due to explosives, but for some reason, the explosives didn't lead to any "free fall" until a second wave of explosives was set off two seconds later!

This is because the other option is inconsistent with the premise -- if you propose that explosives set off in the beginning started the collapse, and then the (sub "free fall") collapse progressed into a period of "free fall" without further explosives, then you also have to accept that any initiation can cause a period of "free fall" later on... even one like NIST proposes. And this invalidates the premise. You are therefore left with the above choices, and in both of them the bombs, and the associated "free fall," serve no purpose whatsoever.

So... which of those two choices above is it to be, Truthers?

Pretty dumb, aren't they? But you don't really have any other alternative. Enjoy that corner, you'll be there for quite some time before the paint dries.

 

[A W Smith]

Still basking in your ignorance Sarns?

Thank you for your relevant argument.
Sarcasm preferable to childish insults.
NIST is using a different starting point in this section and ends when the building is out of sight. The time line I posted is from the data on pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247] check it out. You will see that my assembled time line is correct. It starts with the collapse of column 79 and ends when all the core columns had collapsed. [6.3s after the kink in east penthouse was first detectable]

The table you referenced uses the collapse of the girder between core column 79 and exterior column 44, which is the beginning of the 'cascading floor failures', as a starting point.

5.7.2 pg 263 [pdf 307]
"The first detectable indication of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse was a downward movement of the eastern side of its roofline."

This is in conflict with the graphic 12-46 which shows a kink near the center of the east penthouse was the first detectable movement.

12.4.4 pg 572 [pdf 234]
"The collapse reference time of 0.0 s starts when a kink was observed in the roofline of the east penthouse." [near the center of the penthouse - Figure 12-46 pg 578 [pdf 240]
No big deal, the difference is negligible.

The problem has always been:
You all say the building is collapsing when any part is collapsing starting with the 'cascading floor failures'.
That is technically correct.

Other people say the building is collapsing when the entire building is falling. NIST calls this 'global collapse'
This is also technically correct.

What we have here is two different definitions and a failure to communicate.

Be advised: When I say "The building is falling" I am using the second definition. Most people use this definition. You may use the first definition if you like.

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."

[FONT=&quot]This is the beginning of free fall acceleration. The 1.75s prior to this, me[/FONT]ntioned on pg 45 of 1A, is the kink developing near the center of the building.

Ah yes, ignorance is bliss.

Chris,

There are two significant issues upon which we disagree. And a bunch of small stuff.

1. The difference between "falling at G" versus "falling near G".
2. The issue of timing.

I already dealt with the issue of "at G" vs. "near G". The fact that you don't believe it is immaterial.

Timing:


.
I haven't ignored you. I've CORRECTED you.

One more time...

Look at NCSTAR1-9 vol 2, starting at pg 572 (pdf 234).
Just scan the headings forward to page 586.
NIST identifies FOUR time intervals.
1. Initial Local Failures for collapse initiation. (pg 572 - 574)
2. Vertical Progression of Failure (pg 575 - 578)
3. Horizontal Progression of Failure (pg. 579 - 585)
4. Global collapse (pg 586 - 588)

You are - BY YOUR OWN WORDS - considering ONLY pages 579 - 585.
Compare your page numbers with the page numbers above.

BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you are only considering the 3rd time intervals and ignoring the 1st, 2nd and 4th.
BY YOUR OWN WORDS, the Global collapse segment is not even contained in the section you are quoting.

Reference my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4841012
I told you (first 3 paragraphs) the same stuff there.

And you've blown NIST's clear explanation of the two reference times that they use.



In other words:
collapse reference time = calculation reference time - 16 seconds.
calculation reference time = collapse reference time + 16 seconds.

Got it yet??


.
Being fixed.



More insults. Great. Yawwwn.

Go find someone that you trust that KNOWS math or physics. Chandler, if you want. Ask them to read my posts & tell you whether or not I've fudged, shaded or mis-presented the info in my posts.

You are simply not competent to make this judgment. And you delude yourself to the contrary.


Tom

And yet he basks again in his ignorance

There was NO resistance to the fall of the north face for 100 feet.

 

[triforcharity]

What caused the collapse.

An explanation of what actually caused the collapse would disagree with the NIST report.


Insignificant?

I caan tell you what caused the collapse, and I am not a PE, or AIA, or ASCE, or any other professional orginization, other than IAFF UNION Firefighter.

You see, a REALLY FREAKING BIG building fell down right near there. Some of this REALLY FREAAKING BIG building HIT this smaller building, causing significant damage. (I have seen the damage first hand, with my own two eyes, on the very freaaking day it happened )

This caaused it to catch on fire. Usually, if something is on fire, especially something REALLY BIG, crashes into ANOTHER building, it USUALLY catches fire. Now, this smaller buidling is on fire. We tried to fight the fire, but it was TOO UNSAFE to continue to fight this afaorementioned fire. We know, even as lowly firefighters, that any building that gets hit with another building and caatches fire, its usually not a safe place to be. Especially when we could see the HUGE AMOUNTS OF FIRE in that smaller building. OVER MANY FLOORS.
This might be a little much for your tiny mind to understand, but even lowly firefighters know that fire + metal of ANY kind = NOT A SAFE BUILDING!!!


The fire burned out of control for a few reasons.
#1- We had lost, at that point, 343 firefighters, plus, many more were still missing and unaccounted for. We were not going to risk MORE LIFE to put out a fire that was burning out of control.

#2- The BIGGEST reason, is because were din't have any PRESSURE in our water lines to even TRY to fight a fire. Heck, I heaard many firefighter that day say " ◊◊◊◊ it. Let it burn to the ground." I myself miht have even said it, heck, I saaid alot of things that day. Some of it I do not remember, because stress and shock tend to play mind games with you.


Now, we know that a fire burning uncontrolled in any building is not safe. But, especially in a high rise, with significant structural damage.


So, does this explain whata happened?? I tried to use small words so you could understand what I was saying. Capise???

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

There are two significant issues upon which we disagree. And a bunch of small stuff.

1. The difference between "falling at G" versus "falling near G".
2. The issue of timing.

The timing thing is a diversion. I have given my response.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4842649#post4842649

I already dealt with the issue of "at G" vs. "near G". The fact that you don't believe it is immaterial.

You are saying it was near free fall. This is your premise:

"In fact, the building does NOT fall at free fall acceleration for THE FIRST 105 feet. Or for the first 2 seconds. It falls near "G" for the time between 2 seconds & 4 seconds. Between 0 & 2 seconds, it falls at dramatically "lower than G" acceleration."

That's the same double talk NIST used to hide free fall and it has been debunked. Free fall acceleration begins at 1.75s and ends at 4s for at total of 2.25s. By including the first 1.75s and averaging NIST deliberately hid the fact that there was a period of free fall acceleration.

 

[Shalamar]

I caan tell you what caused the collapse, and I am not a PE, or AIA, or ASCE, or any other professional orginization, other than IAFF UNION Firefighter.

Admit it... you were the one that planet the super secret invisible soundless explosives in WTC 7...

 

[firecoins]

Are you a structural engineer? If not, then you are not an expert and your opinion means nothing. If you are, then you are outvoted 29 to 1.

are you a structural engineer? NO! Your opinion means nothing.

You are outvoted 5 billion to 1.

 

[triforcharity]

Admit it... you were the one that planet the super secret invisible soundless explosives in WTC 7...

You got me figured out. You see, I was mixing some cat urine, apple juice, and cigarette butts in my basement in Florida, and I stumbled upon a super-duper-ultra-cool-invisible-undetectable-invisible-nano-hyper-silent-thermite/thermate. I decided to work in connection with the 10,000 other people that the "Truthers" have implicated, to BLOW UP NEW YORK!!!

So, I agreed to work as a firefighter, so I could kill almost 3000 of my fellow Americans, just for fun. Or maybe it was because there was 7 TRILLION dollars of gold in the basement (BTW, there waas no way we could get to it, so we had to get Silverstein to give us some money insted)

Anyway, I am the only one who has EVER talked about this. PLEASE don't tell anyone......

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You notice the kind of derails we all fell for amiright?

I don't care which CT'r answers this but I'd like one to try at least (in a futile effort to make it relevant to the thread). You got 29 people [sic] an the 570 odd people from AE911 putting their knowledge out to the world. They've stated supposed "facts" about the collapses and they've given "precedents" which "prove" that no building can fail from fire -- ever.

Except their "facts" have internal contradictions, and their "precedents" proving that fire doesn't result in catastrophic failure of large office fires take no variables in building construction into consideration to account for inevitable performance variations. My questions are to you truthers who support ae911:

Do their internal contradictions (IE within footprint and a massive debris field outside the footprint) have any influence on their credibility in your eyes? Surely for laymen such as yourselves who lend their support to their professionals should have seen these.

Does their inability to do a proper building analysis (case study) not disturb you? Or at least make you question their competence in their claims?

I'm asking because I define a qualified professional by the materials' accuracy that they publish. And comparing it with my background, I've seen numerous indications that they are incompetents for failing in some of the most basic studies we do in our university level course work. This is undergraduate material, not something a 20-years vet of the profession (gage, et al) should be having so much trouble with.

 

[Christopher7]

This whole argument really, really makes me laugh.

Think about it. What's being asserted here is the Truth Movement position that "free fall implies use of explosives." As in, any natural collapse cannot lead to any period of unobstructed collapse.

I am only saying that the NIST model does not match the observed collapse.

It does not fall at free fall acceleration.

The horizontal collapse does not occur in the NIST video.

The building was deforming in a way that does not match the videos of the collapse.

The NIST video does not show the whole collapse.

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

Well, if that's the case, then why did the "free fall" period not occur until two seconds into collapse?

NIST chose the point where the first movement of the roof line occurred, the Kink near the center of the north face. This location sank about 7 feet in 1.75s. Global collapse of the entire building began at 1.75s. It fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25s (105 ft)

There's two choices:

Wrong. You put up 2 strawmen and knocked them down.

• The building started collapsing on its own, naturally, but then two seconds later They set off bombs to make it come down faster!

• The building started coming down due to explosives, but for some reason, the explosives didn't lead to any "free fall" until a second wave of explosives was set off two seconds later!

Let's start with the result and work backward.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 105 feet.

This can only happen if there is NO resistance.

Therefore all the supporting columns on 7 floors were removed within 2.25s.

Are you with me so far? Remember, we are NOT talking about the cause yet, We are just stating the known facts.

 

[hokie]

That's the same double talk NIST used to hide free fall and it has been debunked. Free fall acceleration begins at 1.75s and ends at 4s for at total of 2.25s. By including the first 1.75s and averaging NIST deliberately hid the fact that there was a period of free fall acceleration.

Debunked? LOL. This is a case of C7 not understanding the material. He fits the old saying, "Those who know the least know it the loudest"

 

[Christopher7]

Debunked? LOL. This is a case of C7 not understanding the material. He fits the old saying, "Those who know the least know it the loudest"

Baseless personal insult noted.

Point out what is factually incorrect.

 

[Justin39640]

There was NO resistance to the fall of the north face for 100 feet.

May I direct your attention to the source of the video? Note that the URL includes nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos
[this is not a truther site]

The truncated video is a clear case of NIST hiding the truth about the result of their computer model. It was already distorting and did not match the collapse in the videos.

um
i was pointing out
that you linked a video that "truth?"ers would normally not post
cause it shows the east mechanical penthouse collapse

as opposed to this video that "truth?"ers like to cite as "evidence" that cuts out half the collapse



so the NIST video (that you linked) is unedited
beyond that, the YT video uses the audio track from the previous cut over the raw audio of the collapse

evidence of a "douche bag job"
the fact that obviously altered video is used as a "smoking gun" by your "movement" (BM?) pretty much debunks any argument you have by association

another disgusting deception and attempt to turn it around