29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

You know what's impossible? Any sort of "inside job" with respect to the events of 9/11. Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

That's what the good people of Germany said in the 1930's. It's called personal incredulity and it is foolish.

NIST lied about Group 7 loosing N-S lateral support. That lateral support was the girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 and they had not failed.

Do you understand this?

 

[Shalamar]

That's what the good people of Germany said in the 1930's. It's called personal incredulity and it is foolish.

NIST lied about Group 7 loosing N-S lateral support. That lateral support was the girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 and they had not failed.

Do you understand this?

That's personal Incredulity.

 

[The Platypus]

Invoking the nazis is the cheapest and most obvious propaganda technique in the book...

 

[triforcharity]

Ok, I see. So, your saying that the N/S girders connecting 7 with 6/8 respectively, were intact?? From what I can understand from the report, is that the N/S girders were damaged. Would this not mean that there was no N/S support in relation to 6,7,8???

See this graphic.

Am I right or wrong??

 

[tsig]

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.

Why would you expect the girders to be damaged? They were built with trapezoidal design and were virtually indestructible.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ok, I see. So, your saying that the N/S girders connecting 7 with 6/8 respectively, were intact?? From what I can understand from the report, is that the N/S girders were damaged. Would this not mean that there was no N/S support in relation to 6,7,8???

See this graphic.


[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/corecolumnnumbercomposion2.jpg[/qimg]

Am I right or wrong??

You are correct. And the reason why they went first is because of the beam line that continues east/west. This beam line will pull these columns eastward as the collapse continues. It's a mechanic of the horizontal progression of progressive collapse.

Christopher7 tries to deny that damage in that area even existed, even though it's clearly show in the NIST report from where it came from. Not that it really matters, the collapse would still have progressed had that diaphragm not been damaged (albeit somewhat slower of a horizontal prorogation). It's just the latest thing that he's jumped on that makes it, "impossible to collapse, NIST lies, physics broken, OMG!!@!!@1211"

I wonder what he'll find next. Oh dear, the suspense is killing me!

 

[tfk]

Chris,

I think I see a pattern. And a problem.

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?

No. the horizontal collapse was 2 rows away and caused some lateral stress but it did not cause any loss of lateral support.

.
You did not answer my question.

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

You don't understand the problem. NIST said Group 7 lost lateral support in the north-south direction before Groups 6 or 8 had failed. That is a lie because Groups 6 & 8 were providing the north-south lateral support.

.
You did not answer my question.

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?

The problem at hand is no one of aspect ratio, it's about a fictional loss of north-south lateral support.

.
You did not answer my questions.

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??

You didn't even TRY to avoid answering this question.

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"?

East-west is not what NIST lied about.

.
You did not answer my question.

4. NIST says that the collapse of WTC1 damaged Column 66.

Wrong. The debris damage did not damage the core columns or girders. [see pg 182-187]

.
Wow. You actually answered a question.
But you appear to have (no, it would be impolite to say "lied") been mistaken.
If you look at Figure 9-2 of NCSTAR1-9, vol 2, pg. 367, pdf 29, NIST shows the damage caused by the collapse of WTC1. And this area EXPLICITLY includes column 66.

Ooops...

Good thing that we've got someone like you, Chris, who has read this report so carefully, and understands framing so well, to guide us thru these complexities.

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?

Get serious. It did not cause any girder failure.

.
You erroneously stated that my premise was false.
And then you assert that "the WTC1 debris did not cause any girder failure."

Please excuse me for saying so, but you have not inspired gobs of trust & credibility in your judgment. Would you care to explain to me how you know this? Or where NIST says this?

And then, with your new found knowledge that NIST said that Column 66 DID, in fact, sustain damage, could you please answer my question.

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 are hardly the group to criticize anyone for calling someone a liar.

.
I am not a group, Chris. I am an individual. I also have a sense of dignity & respect for myself & others. As a result, I am EXTREMELY reluctant to call anyone a liar. And will do so only when all other possible explanations have been shown to be untenable.

Try to "read for comprehension", Chris. I did not call anyone a liar. I criticized you for recklessly and cavalierly calling 1000s of people whom you have never met "liars". See if you can understand the difference.

Try to read what I DID say again. Here, I'll post it for you.

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.

I told you that the folks at NIST are NOT the ones who determined the sequence of the collapse. Or even the fact of the collapse. It was the software and the hardware.

NIST & others simply built the models, got them as accurate as possible, entered them as data into the LS-DYNA program, hit the "GO" button and waited several weeks for the answer to spit out. If you don't like the answer, go kick a computer someplace. Go picket the LS-DYNA corporation.

If you are claiming that the government can't be criticized...

I never said that.

... or called a liar ...

I never said that.

... because of their exalted position ...

I never said that.

... you are wrong ...

I would have been wrong if I had ever said that. But allow me to point out that ...
I never said that.

I have not only the right but the obligation to point out a government lie.

1. You did not answer ALL, but one, of my questions.
2. The ONE question that you did answer, you answered wrong.
3. Then you, thru some astonishing twist of the English language or hallucination, produced a bunch of nonsense completely out of the blue. And started claiming that I suggested the government sacrosanct...??
4. And now you're invoking the flag, mom & apple pie for your right to ...??? WHAT?
To evade questions?
To make up your own questions?
To give mistaken information about the field (i.e., "framing") that you claim is your expertise?

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.

No. I'm saying the 13 people who signed off on the final report committed fraud.

.
And you don't get it, Chris. The physics, the mechanics, the thermodynamics are BUILT INTO the code. It is the SAME CODE by which they build F-22s & Dams & Highways & Bridges & computers & cars & everything else. THAT is what gave those answers, Chris. NOT the "13 people who signed off on the final report".

And the code is RIGHT, Chris. And I can PROVE it to you right now. Because planes fly. And dams hold back water. And bridges stand. And cars run.

If you want run up to someone & give 'em a good, swift kick in the shins, then go kick Mother Nature. Because that's the way that she put the world together.

But I'd be cautious, Chris. She can be a cast-iron b**ch.

I would point out that I answered, DIRECTLY & HONESTLY, every single question that you asked me. Now, if you'd be so kind as to try again. And this time, please answer the questions that I asked.


Tom

 

[Justin39640]

That's what the good people of Germany said in the 1930's. It's called personal incredulity and it is foolish.

NIST lied about Group 7 loosing N-S lateral support. That lateral support was the girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 and they had not failed.

Do you understand this?

hmm
i think comparing a firebombing of 1 building (which could have been carried out by a very small number of people) to 4 hijackings and 3 buildings hit on purpose

and
comparing 1930s germany to 200X USA is (rule10)ing moronic
whens the "night of the long knives" coming? (pssst its not, well maybe cheney tried by trying to cap his fellow hunter lol)

and are you seriously comparing framing a house to the construction of a 47 story skyscraper?
o man LMAO!!!!!!

i never liked carpentry
id rather use taps dies and measure to the thousands of an inch
remember man - measure twice, cut once

OT- heres a test render for my silly lil models

 

[tsig]

That's what the good people of Germany said in the 1930's. It's called personal incredulity and it is foolish.

NIST lied about Group 7 loosing N-S lateral support. That lateral support was the girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 and they had not failed.

Do you understand this?

And they were right though how they knew about 911 then is a puzzle.

 

[hokie]

I did respond to the data and you are not responding to the data I have presented.

Please don't lie. You have never responded.

 

[Christopher7]

That's personal Incredulity.

No, personal incredulity is denying reality because you just can't imagine such a thing.

 

[hokie]

Stop the lies

I did respond to the data and you are not responding to the data I have presented.

and answer the simple questions about the precision od the data. How precise are the numbers?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

I think I see a pattern. And a problem.
You did not answer my question.
You did not answer my question.
You did not answer my questions.
You didn't even TRY to avoid answering this question.
You did not answer my question.
Wow. You actually answered a question.

Dude, I'm not even going to read all that much less answer it.

You have adopted the denier "talk it to death" tactic.

I ain't goin' for it.

Group 7 could not fail before Groups 6 and 8.

Have a nice day.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris,

Is my illustration wrong?? Yes or no. I have alread run it by my father ( A structrual Engineer, with his doctorate and he says yes, I am right) So, if the beams runnning N/S were damaged or severed, would they provide any lateral support to the colums you claim can't fall.

 

[Christopher7]

Invoking the nazis is the cheapest and most obvious propaganda technique in the book...

Denying the parallels is folly.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc[/FONT]

 

[hokie]

You are online you can finally stop the avoiding the simple issue: how precise are the numbers?

 

[TokenMac]

Dude, I'm not even going to read all that much less answer it.

You have adopted the denier "talk it to death" tactic.

I ain't goin' for it.

Then what are you here for?

I have not only the right but the obligation to point out a government lie.

You did say this right?

 

[Bluesky]

Christopher7, I know you love to talk about the WTC 7 freefall collapse, but you have to admit that there are many other parts of the debate and the "indication" of CD.

This thread is about the ae911truth article, about their "29 experts" which appears to be an odious piece of work that has been crafted to misinform and mislead the reader.

How can the ae9/11truth movement claim that they have 29 experts, when these experts list their own experience as " I used explosives on roads",“none provided”, “ I am a new graduate “, " After working as a Junior Engineer, I returned to pursue a Masters degree(just short)" or “I graduated in 2007”. The latter was probably 14 years old on 9/11.

Ok Chistopher7, I agree that it is more important to discuss facts and failure; but how in your wildest imagination can you believe that the statements from ae911truth are truth. Are you trying to pretend that the ae911truth article was a simple error or omission and not a deliberate falsehood…??

And then they add “ A note About 9/11 “Debunkers”. In which they say “these debunkers predictably moved the goalpost, saying that we didn’t have any engineers who knew about heavy steel structures, such as tall buildings. Since the 28 engineers interviewed for this article do in fact possess that knowledge, the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again. This kind of behavior should make it clear the nature of the game that is being played. One word for it is sophistry.”

Even if the whole CD theory was valid, do you think that its OK for the ae911truth people to lie and manipulate the truth like this to achieve their goals; because they clearly do.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You know what's impossible? Any sort of "inside job" with respect to the events of 9/11. Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

That's what the good people of Germany said in the 1930's. It's called personal incredulity and it is foolish.

What I stated is nothing of the sort. I am not saying I "can't imagine" such a thing as a 9/11 "inside job," I'm saying such a thing could not be carried out. Physically so. A physical impossibility.

NIST lied about Group 7 loosing N-S lateral support. That lateral support was the girders between Group 7 and Groups 6 & 8 and they had not failed.

Do you understand this?

I understand that, in so far as a 9/11 "inside job" would be 100% impossible to conceive, execute, and forever cover up, there is then an explanation sufficient to explain what you find so perplexing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Christopher7, I know you love to talk about the WTC 7 freefall collapse, but you have to admit that there are many other parts of the debate and the "indication" of CD.

<snipped for brevity>

Even if the whole CD theory was valid, do you think that its OK for the ae911truth people to lie and manipulate the truth like this to achieve their goals; because they clearly do.

Don't expect that question the be answered any time soon... I asked essentially the same thing and not a single CT'er attempted to address it -- regardless of whether it were in favor of, or against it.

My only comment to C7 at this point is if you're not keen on responding to the technical issues you've been asked of, you shouldn't have dug yourself 6 ft under jumping into a field of expertise you're not qualified to speak on. If you're gonna comment on technical issues of the collapse, you'd best do so knowing that your credibility rides on your understanding of the concepts. If you don't possess those qualifications then your contentions are as good as fresh meat ready to be stripped.