29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

That's Chandler's data graphed. Can you figure ANYTHING out? That's why it's considered reasonably inaccurate!

With that same stroke tfk takes in NIST as well.
"One can see IMMEDIATELY that Chandler's claim that, over the interval of 1.75 to 4.00 seconds, the acceleration is a constant that is equal to G, as well as NIST's statement that it is "a constant approximately equal to G" is nonsense. The acceleration isn't close to being constant."

David Chandler knows what he is doing. His conclusion was verified by NIST when they duplicated free fall acceleration using a different spot. The two graphs show free fall acceleration and they are almost identical.

tfk's claim that they are both nonsense is laughable.

 

[Newtons Bit]

With that same stroke tfk takes in NIST as well.

Of course he does. He's been saying that sense the beginning. Though I think he's arguing Chandlers has even more error prorogation.

tfk's claim that they are both nonsense is laughable.

Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. I doubt you even have a strong suit, but reading comphrehension definitely isn't it. All tfk has been arguing is that the computed accelerations of the building collapsing are approximate and have some error in them. They might be close to reality, but not 100% there.

But you can't even understand that.

Your biggest problem is that what you lack in knowledge (which is immense) you try to compensate for with gusto in appeals to poor authorities. You don't understand what they're saying, and I honestly don't think you have the acumen to even understand technical arguments. Which is sad: this stuff is pretty basic.

 

[Christopher7]

Group 7 could not fail before Group 8 because the girders between them gave north south lateral support to the columns in Group 7.

NIST lied when they said:
"The middle line of interior columns directly behind the initially severed exterior columns buckled before the two north-south lines of columns immediately to their east. The middle line of interior columns lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed." pg 612 [pdf 274]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Group 7 is between Groups 6 and 8?
Girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 and 8 gave north south lateral support to the columns in Group 7?



Time line using data from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pages 579-585 [pdf 241-247]
-1.3s Column 79 failed [Group 1]
-0.5s Column 80 fails [Group 1]
-0.5s Column 66 fails [Group 8]
~0.0s Column 81 fails [Group 1]
0.0s Kink in penthouse visible
1.3s Columns 77 & 78 failing [Group 2]
2.5s Columns 77 & 78 fail [Group 2]
3.5s Column 76 fails [Group 2]
4.3s Columns 59, 62, 65 & 68 fail [Group 7] G6 & G8 loading
4.5s Columns 73 - 75 fail [Group 3]
5.3s Columns 60, 63 and 69 fail [Group 8]
5.3s Column 58 failed [Group 6]
5.5s Group 3 still failing
6.3s Columns 70 - 72 failing [Group 4]
6.3s Columns 61, 64 and 67 failed [Group 6]


This was ignored because it shows NIST lied. What they proposed is impossible and untrue.

Refusing to deal with the facts by attacking the messenger or trying to bury it in a lot of verbiage is intellectual cowardice.

 

[Toke]

I read it like 6-7-8 were unconnected for 11 floors due to bits of building having hit them.

 

[twinstead]

Refusing to deal with the facts by attacking the messenger or trying to bury it in a lot of verbiage is intellectual cowardice.

Continuing to lecture those who have pretty much owned you in this debate is intellectual cowardice, my man.

 

[tfk]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I'm basically a fresh engineer (since last december). You can see part of my thesis project in my avatar. It's a render of plastic head of the robotic zebra fish larva I developed for Wageningen University to do performance measurements with. Unfortunately, there was only money to hire me for a couple of months to get the build started after I graduated, so I'm looking for a job at the moment.

ETA: Oh, and I see I forgot to mention what kind of aerospace. Well, all kinds, basically. My major (not sure if that's the right term) was design and integration, so you could say I'm a generalist. Among specialists you could also say that I know next to nothing about just about anything.

Welcome to the ranks.

A thought for you... Lots of poeple knows scientists. Few people know engineers. Learn about the luminaries in your field. There are some absolutely incredible stories.

A couple of suggestions:
The real story of Tesla & Westinghouse.
James Watt
Harold Edgerton (inventor of the strobe, and E in EG&G)
Kelly Johnson (skunk works, of course)
Elmer Sperry (gyroscope)
The story of radar (as told in "The device that changed the world" by Buderi)
The incredible engineering challenges behind the atom & H bomb ("The making of the atom bomb" & "Dark Sun", by R Rhodes.

These are all astounding stories. It'll make you feel proud to be part of a fraternity to be familiar with them.

Tom

PS. And a person whose name gets thrown around a lot in here has got a lifetime of achievement that puts him in with all of these guys: Zdenek Bazant. Check out his CV & bibliography page at Northwestern...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Group 7 could not fail before Group 8 because the girders between them gave north south lateral support to the columns in Group 7.

So you're a structural engineer now? Please show me the calculations showing that these columns could survive the drift imposed on them.

Refusing to deal with the facts by attacking the messenger or trying to bury it in a lot of verbiage is intellectual cowardice.

You keep trying to change the subject everytime something is effectively explained to you. Which is why you keep getting nailed with personal attacks. Your inability to understand what's being talked about is the reason why your unable to understand what's being talked about. Which should be a no-brainer to most people, but not to you, oh no. You haven't figured out that you're unable to understand what's being talked about yet. That's where all the problems are!

 

[Christopher7]

I read it like 6-7-8 were unconnected for 11 floors due to bits of building having hit them.

No. The debris damage to the south face did not damage the south line core girders [Group 8]. Group 7 is the center line.
See 9-1 Vol.1 pg 182-187 [pdf 226-231]

 

[tfk]

Sure- It's cool 'till you get to work MRB (rejection tags).
That's where the company decides it is cheaper to get an engineer to explain why the shop ****-up is good anyway than it is to hire people who can actually put stuff together right.
H'ethetheth--the only people you actually fooled were troofers. Welcome out of the closet.

Rumor has it that, by tradition, every drawing that came out of Convair (San Diego) engineering department started off with a note that said only:

Notes:
1. FFFFPM.

Translation: "Force Fit, File to Finish, Paint to Match."

Even if it ain't true, it SHOULD be.

tom

 

[Toke]

No. The debris damage to the south face did not damage the south line core girders [Group 8]. Group 7 is the center line.
See 9-1 Vol.1 pg 182-187 [pdf 226-231]

I was refering to the horizontal brazing between 6-7-8, not the collums themself.

 

[Christopher7]

So you're a structural engineer now? Please show me the calculations showing that these columns could survive the drift imposed on them.

Your question shows you don't know how Group 7 was supported laterally. This is framing 101. Calculations are not necessary. NIST said Group 7 failed because columns 59,62,65 and 68 lost lateral support in the north-south direction. Group 7 was supported laterally in the north-south direction by Groups 6 & 8. Therefore, it could not collapse before it lost this lateral support.

 

[Christopher7]

I was refering to the horizontal brazing between 6-7-8, not the collums themself.

Right, so was I. There were girders connecting the core columns to each other on every floor. These girders provided mutual lateral support to the core columns. None of these girders were damaged by the falling debris from WTC 1.

 

[Toke]

Right, so was I. There were girders connecting the core columns to each other on every floor. These girders provided mutual lateral support to the core columns. None of these girders were damaged by the falling debris from WTC 1.

You just quoted a section stating they had lost lateral support over 11 floors?
Sounds like they had a great excuse to buckle.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your question shows you don't know how Group 7 was supported laterally. This is framing 101. Calculations are not necessary. NIST said Group 7 failed because columns 59,62,65 and 68 lost lateral support in the north-south direction. Group 7 was supported laterally in the north-south direction by Groups 6 & 8. Therefore, it could not collapse before it lost this lateral support.

WTF are you talking about? Framing 101? When did you go to college!

The beams that run east-west can PULL those columns when the eastern floor area collapses. This is a possible effect as those beams run through the elevator shafts and engage less of the floor deck than along any other beam line which mean group 7 is more vulnerable than the beam lines connected to 6 & 8 which are continuously connected to the floor diaphragm.

Stop making things up. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Christopher7]

You just quoted a section stating they had lost lateral support over 11 floors?
Sounds like they had a great excuse to buckle.

That's the point. NIST lied. Group 7 did not loose lateral support in any direction on any floor. The girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 provided the lateral support. Groups 6 & 8 would have to fail first.

 

[FineWine]

That's the point. NIST lied. Group 7 did not loose lateral support in any direction on any floor. The girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 provided the lateral support. Groups 6 & 8 would have to fail first.

You never quite get the idea that accusing hundreds of engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, etc. of "lying" is incredibly stupid. If for some mad reason, they all agreed to "lie," what would stop other engineers around the world from detecting it?

 

[dudalb]

Your arrogant little internet cult is in denial.

(IN my best Pee Wee Harman voice)
"I know you are, but what about me".

 

[H'ethetheth]

Welcome to the ranks.

A thought for you... Lots of poeple knows scientists. Few people know engineers. Learn about the luminaries in your field. There are some absolutely incredible stories.

A couple of suggestions:
The real story of Tesla & Westinghouse.
James Watt
Harold Edgerton (inventor of the strobe, and E in EG&G)
Kelly Johnson (skunk works, of course)
Elmer Sperry (gyroscope)
The story of radar (as told in "The device that changed the world" by Buderi)
The incredible engineering challenges behind the atom & H bomb ("The making of the atom bomb" & "Dark Sun", by R Rhodes.

These are all astounding stories. It'll make you feel proud to be part of a fraternity to be familiar with them.

Tom

PS. And a person whose name gets thrown around a lot in here has got a lifetime of achievement that puts him in with all of these guys: Zdenek Bazant. Check out his CV & bibliography page at Northwestern...

Thanks! Lots to do then.

 

[Christopher7]

You never quite get the idea that accusing hundreds of engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, etc. of "lying" is incredibly stupid. If for some mad reason, they all agreed to "lie," what would stop other engineers around the world from detecting it?

Denial of the facts because of personal incredulity.

Deal with the facts. Group 7 did not fail before Groups 6 & 8 because the girders between them were not damaged.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's the point. NIST lied. Group 7 did not loose lateral support in any direction on any floor. The girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 provided the lateral support. Groups 6 & 8 would have to fail first.

[qimg]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/697/corecolumnnumbercomposi.jpg[/qimg]

Find a new buzz-word to use. That one is becoming stale.