• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

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?

Just out of curiosity how did he demostrate this? Did he provide credentials or was it the content of his posts?

I'm kind of new here so I don't yet know who is who....Im still seperating the troofers from the sane people...
 
Chris,

Since you are not an engineer, how can you assess whether someone here is or is not?
When someone says the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides I know they not an engineer.

Tom has demonstrated clearly that he is an engineer,
In a pigs eye.

at least to those of us who are also engineers,
Of course you are deer.

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?
Because he thinks the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides.
 
No, you were vague.
No, in the title of the quote I supplied the exact page number every time. I make mistakes, big whoop. Address the arguments.

:boggled: 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.
The passage only doesn't make sense if you're not familiar with the term "normal" as used in this context.

I'll explain. A wall forms a plane, yes? Okay, the direction normal to a plane means perpendicular to the plane. This is a very important direction, because it uniquely defines the orientation of a plane in space.
Now "lack of lateral support normal to a building face" means that there are no horizontal structural elements inside the building to keep the wall vertical. That wall is on its own, so to speak. What that passage on NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 page 588 says, is that after the core failed, three of the four faces of the building were on their own; waiting to buckle.

Incidentally, that buckling will generally be out of plane; normal to the plane of the wall.

Clear?

Do you know what a moment frame is?
As my 1st and 2nd year mechanics courses were in Dutch, I was unfamiliar with the term, but I am familiar with the concept. I also know that if you use a moment frame to connect a wall to a falling pile of rubble, it won't function very well.

You said unsupported on 3 sides.
...of the building. And it wasn't me; it's the report that says that.

How snooty is that?
:rub:

Evidence.

1. You asked me how I get from weight (a force) to speed (you meant acceleration). In other words, you didn't see I was using about the most fundamental law in mechanics.
2. You asked me where I got load bearing strength limitations under buckling.
3. You replace the word "normal" with "nominal".

Now, it's no shame to not know these things, but it hardly puts you in a position to judge whether someone is an engineer or not.

That's good, because your appeal to authority is denied.
Great, except I explicitly disclaimed my authority.
Now can we move beyond your failure to grasp the term "normal"? I still have list of ignored items.

  1. Where do you get the idea that columns did not buckle over 7 floors. You showed me yourself, and I showed you.
  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. How can it be that the simulation also comes up with a phase at which the building falls at freefall acceleration? Do you understand that no NIST engineer thinks this is weird, or why?
 
When someone says the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides I know they not an engineer.

In a pigs eye.

Of course you are deer.

Because he thinks the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides.

So only those who support your faith in lies can be engineers?

Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you actually try to learn something from those who know what they are talking about.
 
When someone says the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides I know they not an engineer.

Or when they totally destroy your arguments with calculations and logic.

In a pigs eye.

You appear to be blind here.

Of course you are deer.

I believe you mean "dear", but I have no idea why you are calling me that. This is where we differ, in that I can admit my shortcomings. I am an engineer, as I pointed out in the expertise thread, but I am not a structural guy. I can follow the concepts and understand, but I can not do most of the work myself. You, however, have zero background in this yet think you know more than those who can prove their work with calculations.

Because he thinks the perimeter columns were unsupported on 3 sides.


So what about his total demolition of your other arguments? Besides, you only believe "named" engineers who are CTists. Mackey has crushed your heroes' arguments many times, but you continue to follow the path of stupidity.
 
Yes dear, but the 'global' collapse is when the entire building is falling. The free fall acceleration has been documented and 'peer reviewed' by none other than NIST itself. Your inability to understand this simple fact has left you befuddled.
.
Wrong, Chris.

This is another area in which your "English" fails you.

In common parlance, all the components of the collapse could be considered part of a "global collapse". But this is NOT how NIST uses that term in Section 12, which talks about the details & timing of the collapse.

As you have been shown repeatedly now:
See NIST NCSTAR1-9 vol 2

In Section 12.6 Summary of findings [pg 603 (pdf 265)], NIST identifies FOUR distinct time intervals during which the building is collapsing:

Event | Event Name | Start Event / Time | End Event / Time | Reference
1 | Initial Local Failure for Collapse Initiation | floors collapse, -6 seconds (observed) | Column 79 buckles, -1.3 seconds (analysis) | pg 604, pdf 266
2 | Vertical Progression of Failure | Column 79 buckles, -1.3 seconds (analysis) | East Penthouse begins to descend, 0 seconds (observed) | pg 605, pdf 267
3 | Horizontal Progression of Failure | East Penthouse begins to descend, 0 seconds (observed) | North wall begins to descend, 6.9 seconds (observed) | pg 605, pdf 267
4 | Global Collapse | North wall begins to descend, 6.9 seconds (observed) | External wall complete collapse, >11 seconds (observed from video frames**) | pg 606, pdf 268
The start & stop times for these events are referenced to the start of the collapse of the east penthouse

** See NCSTAR1-9 vol 1, Fig 5-213 pg 285 (pdf 329) Figure 5–213. Frame from the Camera 9 video clip in Figure 5–192 shows the north face of WTC 7 11.0 s ± 0.2 s after the east penthouse began to move downward.
___

This terminology is also illustrated in Figure 12-74 (pdf page 260), which distinguishes an energy peak "after horizontal collapse progression & global collapse initiation".

And in sections:
12.5.1 Aspects Prior to the Global Collapse
... which discusses Collapse initiation, Vertical Progression & Horizontal Progression.

12.5.2 Aspects Following the Collapse Initiation
... which discusses events starting at the collapse of the North Wall.

And finally, in the "Global Collapse" section (vol 2, page 586, pdf 248), which takes up the narrative "After the horizontal progression of column buckling in the core of WTC 7..."
___

Now, you could reasonably argue that NIST should have used a difference vernacular for the 4th interval, such as "External Wall Collapse", instead of "Global Collapse". But they didn't.

It doesn't matter what vernacular you use, as long as:
1. you understand what NIST really says (which you don't appear to), and
2. you are crystal clear about your usage when talking with others.

tom
 
I've moved off-topic posts from the last 3 pages to AAH. Enough with the name calling, bickering, and all the other nonsense already. Posts need to be civil and on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
H said:
all perimeter columns were laterally unsupported on three out of four sides.
C7 said:
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 around the building. That boat don't float. Do you know what a moment frame is?
The passage only doesn't make sense if you're not familiar with the term "normal" as used in this context.
Yes it does and yes I do. You don't know the difference between nominal and normal which makes the following diatribe really silly.

I'll explain. A wall forms a plane, yes? Okay, the direction normal to a plane means perpendicular to the plane. This is a very important direction, because it uniquely defines the orientation of a plane in space.
Now "lack of lateral support normal to a building face" means that there are no horizontal structural elements inside the building to keep the wall vertical. That wall is on its own, so to speak. What that passage on NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 page 588 says, is that after the core failed, three of the four faces of the building were on their own; waiting to buckle.

Incidentally, that buckling will generally be out of plane; normal to the plane of the wall.

Clear?
 
Yes it does and yes I do. You don't know the difference between nominal and normal which makes the following diatribe really silly.
Yes. Unfortunately, your flummery is here for all to see, because this...
[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]
...is not what it says on page 588 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2.

I can't talk to people too childish own up to their mistakes and too arrogant to learn.

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

It said unsupported, not disconnected as you originally stated.

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

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

Bye.
 
No, you were vague.
:boggled: 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?

What are you banging on about? Clearly, if the floor trusses are disconnected on more than one side, even on just one or two floors, structural integrity is shot, and that nasty great hat truss is putting strain on the core columns and the remaining perimeter columns far beyond what they were ever designed to withstand.
 
Yes. Unfortunately, your flummery is here for all to see, because this...
...is not what it says on page 588 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2.

I can't talk to people too childish own up to their mistakes and too arrogant to learn.





Bye.

He wrote "NOMINAL"

ROFL
 
Another huge waste of time. People displaying professional expertise are talking past an uneducated fanatic whose fingers are stuck in his ears. This is a replay of every Ultima1 thread.
 
NOTE: Big sign of a brainwashed cult minion... everything from the cult is valid, everything not from the cult is wrong, even though they don't read any of it...
 
What are you banging on about? Clearly, if the floor trusses are disconnected on more than one side, even on just one or two floors, structural integrity is shot, and that nasty great hat truss is putting strain on the core columns and the remaining perimeter columns far beyond what they were ever designed to withstand.
The floors were disconnected at the east end but the other 18 columns under the screenwall and west penthouse collapsed within 1 second of each other and that area was still attached to the exterior columns. NIST said the core pull the exterior walls down.[588]

Lost support does not mean disconnected.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom