29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Toke]

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.

And I should take you word for that?

Even I can tell what a curve on a velocity/time graf means.
And see that a curve showing more than 1G acceleration has something wrong with it.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Deal with the facts.
There was no damage to the girders around the columns in Group 7.

 

[twinstead]

Deal with the facts.
There was no damage to the girders around the columns in Group 7.

Deal with the facts: You are in the ABJECT minority, you are NOT an engineer, and you don't know what you are talking about. You think otherwise? Until your delightful little cult stops disappearing every time I turn my computer off, I could care less.

 

[Christopher7]

And I should take you word for that?

No, you should be able to look at the framing diagram and see for yourself. Do you know what the drawing is showing?

 

[Christopher7]

Deal with the facts: You are in the ABJECT minority, you are NOT an engineer, and you don't know what you are talking about. You think otherwise? Until your delightful little cult stops disappearing every time I turn my computer off, I could care less.

You did not deal with the facts. All you know is insults.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris,

While I am not an engineer, even I can understand what they are saying.

You saying that NIST lied is like you telling me that I don't know what it means to fight fire. Its assinine at best.

NIST didn't lie, they just are too complex for you to understand them. Just as you don't know the difference between supraventrical tachocardia, and an arterial flutter. But I do.

So, basically what you are trying to say, is that a collection of some of the finest engineers in the country LIED because they thought it would be fun. This is.....Nevermind. But, you know better because you got your Masters from Cracker-Jack Box University.

Just stop. Its getting old.

 

[Jackanory]

Do you know what the drawing is showing?

I think it has been established that you dont know yourself. Why dont you go ask your friend again?

You just duck and dive, copy and paste and handwave.

Now that you have jumped from 'free fall' to ' girders' and back to 'free fall' and back to 'girders' again -none of which you understand, can you now answer my question on free fall and terminal velocity (which you convieniently swerved and ignored).

Or are you gonna bypass that with another 'buzz word'.

PS On second thoughts - dont bother!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Deal with the facts.
There was no damage to the girders around the columns in Group 7.

Facts? You never responded to my argument on how the beam line on Group 7 could pull the columns (i.e. drift). This could happen without damage to to the diaphragm at group 7 (though NIST clearly shows damage in that area prior to the collapse).

You simply state an assertion and then never back it up with any argument. You also don't even both reading other peoples arguments that challenge your base assertion. What are you trying to do here, aggravate people? That's the only thing you've accomplished so far.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

While I am not an engineer, even I can understand what they are saying.

Can you understand that Group 7 did not loose lateral support?

NIST didn't lie, they just are too complex for you to understand them.

Hogwash. There is nothing complicated about this.

So, basically what you are trying to say, is that a collection of some of the finest engineers in the country LIED because they thought it would be fun.

The 9/11 Commission was a cover up. So is the NIST report. They claimed something that is impossible. Come out of your personal incredulity cage and deal with the facts.

 

[The Platypus]

That's the pathetic part of these 911 cult minions... They expect us to ignore all the thousands of experts and instead, follow the ranting and raving from arrogant children on the internet that haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

Sorry but i'm going to take the word of thousands of experts, over some irrational ranting nut online that uses arrogance as a substitute for intelligence...

 

[Jackanory]

Come out of your personal incredulity cage and deal with the facts.

Stay away from the youtube posting arena C7. Stop pretending that you know what you post. We see through it. Youtube kids like it though.

 

[Christopher7]

Facts? You never responded to my argument on how the beam line on Group 7 could pull the columns (i.e. drift). This could happen without damage to to the diaphragm at group 7 (though NIST clearly shows damage in that area prior to the collapse).

There is no beam line on Group 7. Perhaps you mean the east west connecting girders. They are not the stated cause. It was the north south girders that were supposed to have failed. You don't understand what the false claim by NIST is. Go back and read post 803.

You simply state an assertion and then never back it up with any argument.

On the contrary, I have stated the physical reality that Group 7 was supported laterally by the girders between itself and Groups 6 & 8. Do you understand that much?

 

[Christopher7]

Stay away from the youtube posting arena C7. Stop pretending that you know what you post. We see through it. Youtube kids like it though.

Would you care to address the issue directly?

 

[triforcharity]

Wow, so big words are supposed to deter me from stating the obvious??

No, I cannot understand that. I personally do not understand every single detail in the NIST report of WTC 7. But, what I do understand is that one failed support CAN result in the demise of a building. I have seen it before. I am a firefighter, and have seen entire roof's collapse because of fire. Small ones.

So, let me get this straight. Just because I don't understand all the techical terms, let me just make sure I understand.

Group 7 caused the failure of groups 6 and 8. lateral support means from left to right, forewards and backwards, correct??

Now, why would this not be possible?? Groups 6 & 8 were not directly connected by each other. They were connected by horizontal beams going from 8-7 and from 7-6. Correct?? So, if the colums in 7 fail, why wouldn't the connections that kept them supported laterally not cause the failure of 6 & 8?? Is it not possible?? Is this exactly what you are saying??

I just want to make sure I understand.

 

[alexi_drago]

Hogwash. There is nothing complicated about this.

A velocity/time graph had you stumped.

 

[Toke]

No, you should be able to look at the framing diagram and see for yourself. Do you know what the drawing is showing?

Yes, it shows in what order the assorted groups of colums collapsed.
I am not qualified to start second guessing why or how.

Do you really think you are?

 

[Jackanory]

Would you care to address the issue directly?

would you?

 

[tfk]

Chris,

...Calculations are not necessary....

Boy, if I had a nickel every time I've heard THAT in my career...

... uttered by someone who said it precisely because he didn't know how to do the calculation.

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.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/697/corecolumnnumbercomposi.jpg

.
Sure, I'll walk onto your playground. After spanking you on my home court.

And I'll just ask you a couple of questions, since framing is not my field.

1. You said above that "Group 7 did not loose lateral support in any direction on any floor."
Are you suggesting that Column 69 was not connected to 72? That C68 was not connected to C71? That C67 was not connected to C70?

Is there some secret "framing principle" that would tell you to leave 47 story tall columns UNSUPPORTED in the "east-west" direction?

2. What is the typical aspect ratio (Length:Width:Height) of one of your steel framing jobs? How would that compare to the aspect ratio for the WTC7 building?

Do you think that frames that are really, really, really tall & thin are a little more endangered by loss of lateral support (EVEN "east-west" lateral support) than shorter & wider frames??

3. As Newton noted, if the 40 or so individual girders all pulled all together down & to the east on those really, really, really tall & thin moment frames, do you think that there is a possibility that they might, oh, I don't know, "feel it"?

4. NIST says that the collapse of WTC1 damaged Column 66. In a framed building, do you think that what anatomists would refer to as "seriously blunt dissection" of a building (aka, a couple thousand tons of debris falling on it), might propagate a teensy bit of damage thru the horizontal girders that attach the damaged column to the immediately adjacent columns?

Or, in framing circles, is dropping a couple thousand tons of debris on a building known to be a "surgically precise" form of disassembly?

Thank you, in advance, for helping me to understand these issues.

Tom

BTW, Chris...

That's the point. NIST lied.

Pompous buffoons recklessly call complete strangers "liars". You seem inordinately comfortable doing that on a rather frequent basis.

If you are going to indulge in such boorish behavior, you might AT LEAST baselessly accuse the RIGHT innocent people.

NIST is clearly not the people that you wish to be casually slandering. Because NIST did NOT provide this sequence that has your panties in such a bunch.

You best start calling the folks at Intel, and ANSYS, and LS-DYNA a "bunch of liars". Because it was their software & hardware (DAMN NWO CPUs !!) that provided all those answers.

NIST simply created the model and hit the "Go" button.

Feel free to resume cavalierly slandering innocent (& competent) people at your (in)discretion.

As you can tell, EVERYONE is moved to tears by your righteous indignation...

LoL.

 

[Christopher7]

So, let me get this straight. Just because I don't understand all the techical terms, let me just make sure I understand. Group 7 caused the failure of groups 6 and 8.

The problem is, Group 7 could not fail before it lost north-south lateral support and Groups 6 & 8 were providing that support. Group 7 could not fail first.

lateral support means from left to right, forewards and backwards, correct??

Correct, but in this case, it's the north-south lateral support NIST is lying about. [up and down on the drawing]

 

[tfk]

Thanks! Lots to do then.

.
There will be a pop-quiz on Friday!!



tom