29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Dave Rogers]

Hello? You are asking me to prove a negative. That's not the way it works.

You're claiming a negative; that group 7 could not possibly have failed before groups 6 and 8. Are you now saying you can't prove your claim?

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Chirs,

There is a graphic I would like you to see.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Page 83 of the PDF. Please look at it, and tell me how these columns, 79,80,81 had any kind of support whatsoever.


Also, to understand the damage that has occured around column 79, look at page 64. Also, to understand the amount of damage from WTC 7 had from WTC 1, look at page 59.


DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO EXTRACT A PHOTO FROM A PDF????????

 

[Newtons Bit]

Political claptrap. Its all you have.

Your freefall claims are shot. Chandlers data is wrong. Give it up. Its embarrassing.

You do realize that for a portion of the collapse sequence, that the building fell at roughly g, correct?

 

[newton3376]

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO EXTRACT A PHOTO FROM A PDF????????

I would just use a program like "SnagIt"....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I would just use a program like "SnagIt"....

In this particular case the only method is through screen capture anyway. The PDF's are secured preventing direct copying of the source content and alterations of the source content.

 

[triforcharity]

I will just print it out and scan it. This will work perfectly.

 

[Christopher7]

You're claiming a negative; that group 7 could not possibly have failed before groups 6 and 8. Are you now saying you can't prove your claim?

Dave

Clever double talk. NIST is claiming that the Group 7 lost lateral support.
I listed all the damage. There was no mention of damage to the girders around Group 7 in the final report. Further I noted that columns 65 and 68 were in elevator shafts an not subject to debris or fire damage. That is proof that NIST was lying.

 

[Christopher7]

You do realize that for a portion of the collapse sequence, that the building fell at roughly g, correct?

David Chandler proved and NIST confirmed that WTC 7 fell at [indistinguishable from, not roughly] free fall acceleration and all your double talk will not change that FACT.

 

[beachnut]

Chirs,

There is a graphic I would like you to see.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Page 83 of the PDF. Please look at it, and tell me how these columns, 79,80,81 had any kind of support whatsoever.

Also, to understand the damage that has occured around column 79, look at page 64.

Also, to understand the amount of damage from WTC 7 had from WTC 1, look at page 59.

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO EXTRACT A PHOTO FROM A PDF????????

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1WTC7p83a.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1WTC7p83b.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1WTC7damage.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1WTC7col79.jpg

 

[Christopher7]

Chirs,

There is a graphic I would like you to see.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Page 83 of the PDF. Please look at it, and tell me how these columns, 79,80,81 had any kind of support whatsoever.

Also, to understand the damage that has occured around column 79, look at page 64. Also, to understand the amount of damage from WTC 7 had from WTC 1, look at page 59.

I'm not disputing the collapse of columns 79, 80 and 81. It's the collapse of Group 7 when the girders were not damaged except for the south side of column 65.

 

[Audible Click]

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

I know you were joking but fom personal experience I can tell you that it's not true.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks beachnut. Now my printer is acting idiotic too. Its going back to Kodak now....

Anyway, look at the images posted by beachnut. Please note, that the red indicates failure, or near failure. Blue indicated no effect.

"I'm not disputing the collapse of columns 79, 80 and 81. It's the collapse of Group 7 when the girders were not damaged except for the south side of column 65."

Ok, now, lets look at this graphic again.

Notice where is says "southern deflection in upper floors increased >1m?? That means that the upper floors were deflecting (moving, leaning, being pulled towards) the south. Up to one meter. 1 meter is 3.2808399 feet, or 3 feet, 3 inches, 5 or 6 /16th of an inch. Notice where it has this ">" symbol. What does that mean?? MORE THAN!!!
These beams and girders have flexed to the south more than 3 feet.

Now, tell me, why wouldn't there be some failure in Group 7??

 

[Dave Rogers]

Clever double talk.

Acclaim from the master!

NIST is claiming that the Group 7 lost lateral support.
I listed all the damage. There was no mention of damage to the girders around Group 7 in the final report. Further I noted that columns 65 and 68 were in elevator shafts an not subject to debris or fire damage. That is proof that NIST was lying.

You claimed that group 7 couldn't have collapsed before 6 and 8. That's a negative claim. Then you said you couldn't prove a negative. I agree; you can't prove your claim.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

typical twoofer tactic.

get owned, get called out for it, then shift shift shift and say "I'm not answering that."

ROFLMAO.

Thanks twoof for the laughs, it was great watching you get completely OWNED.

 

[triforcharity]

Here is another of my paintshop illustrations.

Deos this make sense?? Its just an idea, but could this explain the failure of 7 fefore 6 and 8?? I think it can.

 

[Newtons Bit]

David Chandler proved and NIST confirmed that WTC 7 fell at [indistinguishable from, not roughly] free fall acceleration and all your double talk will not change that FACT.

You think that an acceleration greater than g is indistinguishable from g?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Here is another of my paintshop illustrations.

Deos this make sense?? Its just an idea, but could this explain the failure of 7 fefore 6 and 8?? I think it can.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/corecolumnnumbercomposi6.jpg[/qimg]

Judging by what I see of C7's argument, he seems to think that WTC7 was compartmentalized. In other words that each set of columns supported parts of the building independently such that if column 79 failed for example, only the structure associated with that column would collapse. Looks to me like christopher7 doesn't understand how to draw load paths or even how they'd have changed as supports inside WTC7 failed.

When I was taking my structures two courses there was term we used to describe the effective span that was supported by a girder or beam; the tributary area. If you had two columns supporting one span from each end then each column would support half of the span. tfk and newton's bit should know what I'm talking about and be much more able to explain this in depth as it falls in both their areas of expertise.

I'd personally have to draw it and post it to explain it properly as it relates to what C7's not understanding.

 

[BigAl]

Chirs,

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO EXTRACT A PHOTO FROM A PDF????????

It's possible that Photoshop can do it via the import tools.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks, beachnut did it for me. MUCH THANKS!!!!

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks beachnut. Now my printer is acting idiotic too. Its going back to Kodak now....

Anyway, look at the images posted by beachnut. Please note, that the red indicates failure, or near failure. Blue indicated no effect.

That's for the previous, per floor - looking down, graphics
pg 39 [pdf 81]
"displacement of each structural element. Displacements greater than 0.15 m (6 in.) are also shown in red.

"I'm not disputing the collapse of columns 79, 80 and 81. It's the collapse of Group 7 when the girders were not damaged except for the south side of column 65."

Ok, now, lets look at this graphic again.

Notice where is says "southern deflection in upper floors increased >1m?? That means that the upper floors were deflecting (moving, leaning, being pulled towards) the south. Up to one meter. 1 meter is 3.2808399 feet, or 3 feet, 3 inches, 5 or 6 /16th of an inch. Notice where it has this ">" symbol. What does that mean?? MORE THAN!!!
These beams and girders have flexed to the south more than 3 feet.

Now, tell me, why wouldn't there be some failure in Group 7??

It says upper floors, that probably means 30 + floors.

A building is effectively one piece. The core columns cannot bend separately from the outer walls because the floor beams hold them together and slabs provide lateral support and lateral shear.