29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

You seem to be ignoring some parts of your own post.

Not at all. NIST misstated the fact when they said "the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft)." giving the impression that the entire north face had descended when in fact it hadn't.
[see post 568]

[FONT=&quot]The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

* 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]

 

[The Platypus]

When will these 911 cult minions realize that typing in a larger font doesn't magically validate what you are saying.

Nobody is going to go, "gee, larger font, I totally buy everything you say now."

I notice this is a common practice online amongst juveniles and those with juvenile minds.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"

There's more of course to what this guy is saying that really disturbs me. But most disturbing is that this engineer doesn't even know what a progressive collapse is. And he's claiming that physics was somehow violated through "faster than freefall". I hate to break it to him but no matter what kind of collapse you have going "faster that gravitational acceleration" in a gravity driven event is preposterously stupid. It's amazing that people defend this sort of incompetence.

 

[Christopher7]

So you think NIST is lying?

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 105 ft

No,

Then you agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 105 ft, right?

 

[TokenMac]

Not at all. NIST misstated the fact when they said "the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft)." giving the impression that the entire north face had descended when in fact it hadn't.
[see post 568]

[FONT=&quot]The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

* 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]

And I can't help but notice that this quote is from a different part of the report.

If NIST was talking about the whole building then why would they use the words "north face" (twice).

When they said "the entire building" and "as a single single unit" could they not have meant the rest of the building, not every single part of the building as a whole, when you consider that the penthouse had already collapsed it would seem more likely.

In fact if you go back and read the highlighted part, they even says they weren't talking about the building as a whole.

 

[Justin39640]

And I can't help but notice that this quote is from a different part of the report.

If NIST was talking about the whole building then why would they use the words "north face" (twice).

When they said "the entire building" and "as a single single unit" could they not have meant the rest of the building, not every single part of the building as a whole, when you consider that the penthouse had already collapsed it would seem more likely.

In fact if you go back and read the highlighted part, they even says they weren't talking about the building as a whole.

you mean 6 pages of C7 screaming the same redundant line over and over and over.... again, was out of context?
nahhhhhhh lol

 

[Christopher7]

And I can't help but notice that this quote is from a different part of the report.

So what? Intelligent people can put facts together and see the whole picture. Idiots need all the details in one statement because they are incapable of putting facts together.

If NIST was talking about the whole building then why would they use the words "north face" (twice).

Since they were basing free fall acceleration by observing the north face, saying the north face descended is correct. I added the other statement from a different part of the report because NIST scattered the facts instead of putting all the relevant facts about a single aspect together.

When they said "the entire building" and "as a single single unit" could they not have meant the rest of the building, not every single part of the building as a whole, when you consider that the penthouse had already collapsed it would seem more likely.

Yes, that is self evident to anyone of reasonible intelligence.

 

[TokenMac]

So what? Intelligent people can put facts together and see the whole picture. Idiots need all the details in one statement because they are incapable of putting facts together.

I'm confused, how can you use the NIST report to prove free fall one second then claim NIST is wrong the next second with the same 2 quotes that have little relation to each other and are from different chapters of the report.

I can say "it is a fact that fish swim, and it is a fact that I can swim, so I must be a fish", by ignoring every thing else about fish and humans I can turn these facts in to lies (would use qoutes from books about fish and/or humans but I to lazy).

Since they were basing free fall acceleration by observing the north face, saying the north face descended is correct.

I may be wrong but wasn't the north face at the back of WTC7 where there are no videos for NIST or anyone else to reviewed?

I added the other statement from a different part of the report because NIST scattered the facts instead of putting all the relevant facts about a single aspect together.

It looks more like you found a part with the words free fall in them then skipped to the part about the rest of collapse.

Like I said I'm confused how you can say "NIST is right as proof, which is proof NIST is wrong", but I see now that you think they were only watching the north face.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm confused, how can you use the NIST report to prove free fall one second then claim NIST is wrong the next second with the same 2 quotes that have little relation to each other and are from different chapters of the report.

The free fall acceleration is confirmed on pg 45. The fact that it involved the entire upper part falling as a single unit is in a different part of the report [FONT=&quot][pg 588] [/FONT]making it difficult and very time consuming to put the pieces together. I did the research and brought the relevant facts together for you yet you still can't see the relationship.

[FONT=&quot]"the north face descended at gravitational acceleration"
"This free fall drop continued for 105 ft"
"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit,[/FONT]

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could see that putting the three statements together nets:

[FONT=&quot]The entire building above the collapse zone fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

If you are still confused, read page 588. It makes it clear that the above statement is correct.
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

 

[TokenMac]

The free fall acceleration is confirmed on pg 45. The fact that it involved the entire upper part falling as a single unit is in a different part of the report [FONT=&quot][pg 588] [/FONT]making it difficult and very time consuming to put the pieces together. I did the research and brought the relevant facts together for you yet you still can't see the relationship.

[FONT=&quot]"the north face descended at gravitational acceleration"
"This free fall drop continued for 105 ft"
"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit,[/FONT]

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could see that putting the three statements together nets:

[FONT=&quot]The entire building above the collapse zone fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

I not making fun of you or being mean but, how can you take 3 sentences from all over a report with over 12 volumes, combine them with only the parts you like, and think that is a reasonable way to do any thing much less prove your point?
I think you may be really dishonest and/or really sick.

[/B]If you are still confused, read page 588. It makes it clear that the above statement is correct.
[/FONT][/SIZE] http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

I only have two things to say about that page.

1. I don't see how it supports what you a claiming, but I will say I'm not an engineer. I was mostly commenting on your quote mining.

2. That page is doesn't have much text at all, if it supports what you claim it does then I don't see why you can't post it for the experts* here?

*just pointing out that at least one of the "29" is a member here.

 

[Architect]

Betting money is illegal.

Not in this country it's not, and I suspect it isn't in yours either.

You are an anonymous person who is asking me to take the word of another anonymous person.
Theory being that the honesty of the mods is a given and should not be questioned.

You don't trust the mods?

Put your credentials where your mouth is.

I've proven my qualifications, including ARB and RIBA registration details, to the Mods. Frankly, I suspect that this is good enough evidence for 99% of the posters here. Why should I give you details which allow you to spam me at work with your Truther nonsense?

You cannot claim to have the expertise to criticize them unless you are willing to do the same.

Oh, I think if you look back over my more technical posts you'll find plenty of evidence that I understand the issues at WTC 1 and 2 far better than them. Mind you, at this stage you'll just hand wave and shout "WTC 7!".

 

[funk de fino]

Are YOU an engineer?

Not only is he not an engineer he cannot even read technical documents correctly and makes stuff up by conflating different quotes and pretending they say things they dont. In my book that is lying. especially when it is pointed out to him that his interpretation of those quotes is incorrect.

I'm glad a certain retired carpenter is not fitting my new kitchen.

 

[Christopher7]

I not making fun of you or being mean but, how can you take 3 sentences from all over a report with over 12 volumes, combine them with only the parts you like

NIST obfuscated the facts by spreading them out over the 1,000 page report. It takes a lot of time to find and assemble all the facts relevant to the free fall acceleration.

[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported nominal to the east, south and north faces. 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]* This is the beginning of the 2.25s free fall acceleration.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore: The entire building above the collapse zone fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.[/FONT] [and then continued to the ground - global collapse]

[FONT=&quot]I hope this clears up your confusion.[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

You don't trust the mods?

No

I've proven my qualifications, including ARB and RIBA registration details, to the Mods. Frankly, I suspect that this is good enough evidence for 99% of the posters here.

Yes

Why should I give you details which allow you to spam me at work with your Truther nonsense?

Please You don't have a spam blocker? I do. You just mark an email as spam and from then on any emails from that email address go directly to the spam file. It's real easy.

Oh, I think if you look back over my more technical posts you'll find plenty of evidence that I understand the issues at WTC 1 and 2 far better than them.

Not

If you insist that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration, in spite of the fact that NIST has confirmed there was 2.25s of free fall acceleration, you are in denial and your degrees [if you really have them] mean nothing.


Mind you, at this stage you'll just hand wave and shout "WTC 7 did not fall at free fall acceleration!".

 

[Heiwa]

NIST obfuscated the facts by spreading them out over the 1,000 page report. It takes a lot of time to find and assemble all the facts relevant to the free fall acceleration.

[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported nominal to the east, south and north faces. 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]* This is the beginning of the 2.25s free fall acceleration.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore: The entire building above the collapse zone fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.[/FONT] [and then continued to the ground - global collapse]

[FONT=&quot]I hope this clears up your confusion.[/FONT]

It could be added that NIST performed Finite Element Analysis of the WTC 7 structure that free fell while free falling for 2.25 seconds and found that the structure not only free fell! It also fell apart at the same time. FANTASTIC!

Two impossible feats combined. Asking NIST to clarify is met by ........ silence! That's why I joined AE911Truth.org and became one of the 29!

 

[H'ethetheth]

This [pg 588] is not the page you referenced* [1A pg 45].

Okay yes, I made a mistake in where I thought I read your quote. However, every time I used the quote, there were page numbers listed with it. A nice topic to avoid adressing the arguments, I agree.

The text says "the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported nominal to the east, south and north faces."

It does not say that. It says "normal to the east south and north faces" The fact that you don't recognise the term "normal to", indicates to me you have no idea what it means.

It said unsupported, not disconnected as you originally stated.

Support in structures is precisely and exlusively obtained my making connections. Unsupported means disconnected from the structure in a way that compromises structural integrity.

You misinterpreted "laterally unsupported nominal to the east, south and north faces" as the exterior columns not being connected to each other.

First of all, you misinterpreted, and misread the word "normal" to mean God knows what.
Secondly, you misinterpreted my saying "not connected to eachother" as meaning "every single column disconnected from every other one" However, it should be clear, especially in light of the quoted passage, that I mean that the perimeter was structurally disconnected from the core, and unsupported perpendicular to the wall. That is, the perimeter was standing by itself, very much like an empty soda can with a person standing on it; a very strong structure until something starts it buckling.

So please go stand on that soda can. I know you haven't yet. It's really a nice and easy* experiment, and it could clarify a great deal.

You are NOT an engineer!

And you've demonstrated this by misreading my posts, being unfamiliar with math terminology and Newton's laws, and not understanding the principles of structural support and buckling?

Okay.


If you want, you can ignore the fact that I actually am an engineer and just concentrate on the arguments. I mean, the engineers discussed in this very thread are also licensed engineers, so authority is not to be trusted in this thread. That's fine by me. Until now I never explicitly claimed I am an engineer in this discussion for that very reason.

Now, I note that you have not adressed the following:

1. I show you columns buckling over 7 storeys. You failed to acknowledge this and start quibbling over a semantics issue about terminology you are not familiar with.
2. I have shown you the "math" for my ballpark estimate of the initial force opposing the falling building. You have not commented on it.
3. I have asked you how it can be that the simulation also comes up with a phase at which the building falls at freefall acceleration. In the most advanced collapse simulation in history there is a phase during perimeter column buckling where the top of the building falls at freefall acceleration.
   Do you understand why no NIST engineer thinks this is weird?

*Unless, of course, you're in the US and the US may have evolved beyond the need of such puny things as 33cl soda cans. I believe that's about 11 fl.oz.

 

[TruthersLie]

H'ethetheth

they are 12 ounce cans... but close enough for government work. But he won't do it because he cannot understand how it relates to wtc 7 collapsing... so he will be back BOLDING freefall for 105 feet across 7 floors yada yada yada...

 

[Christopher7]

Okay yes, I made a mistake in where I thought I read your quote. However, every time I used the quote, there were page numbers listed with it.

No, you were vague.

I got it from two lines before the freefall phase quote* you like so much. It says that just before the final collapse, and after the core columns had collapsed, all perimeter columns were laterally unsupported on three out of four sides.

That's kinda like one hand clapping, it can't be. If the columns were only connected on one side, then there would be sets of two adjacent columns tied together but not tied to adjacent sets all the way arround the building. That boat don't float. Do you know what a moment frame is?

Secondly, you misinterpreted my saying "not connected to eachother" as meaning "every single column disconnected from every other one" However, it should be clear, especially in light of the quoted passage, that I mean that the perimeter was structurally disconnected from the core, and unsupported perpendicular to the wall.

You said unsupported on 3 sides.

And you've demonstrated this by misreading my posts, being unfamiliar with math terminology and Newton's laws, and not understanding the principles of structural support and buckling?

How snooty is that?

If you want, you can ignore the fact that I actually am an engineer and just concentrate on the arguments. I mean, the engineers discussed in this very thread are also licensed engineers, so authority is not to be trusted in this thread. That's fine by me.

That's good, because your appeal to authority is denied.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, that was predictable. Do I get a prize?

Predicting C7 will fall back on truther canards is like predicting the sun will rise in the east.

I'll mail you a cookie. How's that for a prize?

 

[Disbelief]

Chris,

Since you are not an engineer, how can you assess whether someone here is or is not? Tom has demonstrated clearly that he is an engineer, at least to those of us who are also engineers, yet you can't seem to get this. Is it because he has not disclosed his full name, or is it because he does not agree with your contentions?