29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

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

Acceleration greater than G is not possible with out an assist.
tfk's calculations are bunk. David Chandler used an on line physics program that is designed to calculate movement. The calculations are not David's as some here claim. tfk' claim that he has shown this on line program is faulty is arrogance and delusions of grandeur. He is talking thru his hat.

NIST confirmed David Chandler's findings. They used a different program and attained the same results. That is scientific conformation.

Accept reality.

 

[hokie]

Acceleration greater than G is not possible with out an assist.

Wrong again. You should follow the thread to see how it works.

David Chandler used an on line physics program that is designed to calculate movement. The calculations are not David's as some here claim. tfk' claim that he has shown this on line program is faulty is arrogance and delusions of grandeur. He is talking thru his hat.

This is a case of garbage in garbage out. Just because a computer did some calculations doe snot mean it is correct. Maybe Chandler did not know what was a proper program to use or did not understand the calculations. Regardless, that still makes the calculations poor at best.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wrong again. You should follow the thread to see how it works.



This is a case of garbage in garbage out. Just because a computer did some calculations doe snot mean it is correct. Maybe Chandler did not know what was a proper program to use or did not understand the calculations. Regardless, that still makes the calculations poor at best.

Or his data had error in it.

Christopher7, when we say error in the data, what do you think we're referring to?

 

[triforcharity]

When I think that his "error in data" maybe the comparison is wrong. Meaning, the timing that he uses for WTC 7 is off?? Is this correct??

 

[Christopher7]

Or his data had error in it.

Christopher7, when we say error in the data, what do you think we're referring to?

Give it up. Your denial is silly and pathetic.

He entered the points and the program did the calculations.
NIST did the same using a different program and got the same results.

Do you think the NIST data is flawed too?

 

[tfk]

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.

You are completely wrong with these statements. There was significant, fatal damage to the lateral supports to BOTH columns 66 & 69. And column 69 buckled before any column in your precious Group 7.

Too bad you can't read & understand the report as a whole. Instead of extracted, self-serving snippets.

tom

 

[tfk]

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

My old boss (a Convair alumni & about the finest old school, button down, hard ass engineer I've ever known) FIBBED to me...??!!

Say it ain't so...



tk

 

[Christopher7]

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.

No.

NIST said Group 7 failed because it lost north-south lateral support. This is an entirely different scenario.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
"The middle line of interior columns [Group 7] lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."


This statement alone proves that did not happen.

9-1 Vol.2 pg 607 [pdf 269]
"The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the west side of Floors 10 through 14" [around columns 59 and 62]

 

[Christopher7]

You are completely wrong with these statements. There was significant, fatal damage to the lateral supports to BOTH columns 66 & 69. And column 69 buckled before any column in your precious Group 7.

Too bad you can't read & understand the report as a whole. Instead of extracted, self-serving snippets.

You point out my mistake and then make one of your own. You are wrong about column 69.
-0.5s Column 66 fails [Group 8]
4.3s Columns 59, 62, 65 & 68 fail [Group 7] G6 & G8 loading
5.3s Columns 60, 63 and 69 fail [Group 8]

I have already corrected the omission of column 66 in post #894.
"Column 66 [group 8] had failed for no apparent reason a few seconds earlier, [damage occurred 7 hours earlier] leaving column 65 unsupported to the south. Other than that, there was no damage to the girders surrounding the columns in group 7 on any floor."

 

[triforcharity]

Chris,

You need to read the entire section to understand what they are saying. Your taking snips of paragraphs, and trying to make it into something it isn't.

I couldn't understand exactly what was being said, so I DLed the entire report, and it makes absolute sense. Please read the chapters completely.

I will try to make a diagram tomorrow. I have to get sleep sometime tonight.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

You need to read the entire section to understand what they are saying. Your taking snips of paragraphs, and trying to make it into something it isn't.

I couldn't understand exactly what was being said, so I DLed the entire report, and it makes absolute sense. Please read the chapters completely.

I will try to make a diagram tomorrow. I have to get sleep sometime tonight.

I have read the entire section and the other relevant sections.

Did you read this?

1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
"The middle line of interior columns [Group 7] lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."


This statement alone proves that did not happen.

9-1 Vol.2 pg 607 [pdf 269]
"The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the west side of Floors 10 through 14" [around columns 59 and 62]

 

[Audible Click]

My old boss (a Convair alumni & about the finest old school, button down, hard ass engineer I've ever known) FIBBED to me...??!!

Say it ain't so...



tk

Sorry to disillusion you.

 

[tfk]

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.

.
It was one piece BEFORE the North Tower fell on it.

 

[hokie]

Give it up. Your denial is silly and pathetic.

Once again C7, you do not understand what is being said. On several occasions I tried to point out sources of error. You shown how you have difficulty in interpreting the results. That's OK. There are many experienced people here trying to assist. You continue to persist to repeat the same mistakes with listening.

He entered the points and the program did the calculations.

So great you understand how garbage is generated. You still don't understand the limitations and errors associated with that process.

That is the key to understanding. Take the time. You obviously have not.

 

[Klimax]

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.

Only one thing.There are applications which are able to decrypt pdfs.(And if pdf is viewable,it is instant. Advanced pdf password recovery or something like that.)

 

[Newtons Bit]

Give it up. Your denial is silly and pathetic.

He entered the points and the program did the calculations.
NIST did the same using a different program and got the same results.

Do you think the NIST data is flawed too?

Quite the dodge.

You have no clue what were referring to when we say the data has error in it, do you?

 

[tfk]

Give it up. Your denial is silly and pathetic.

He entered the points and the program did the calculations.
NIST did the same using a different program and got the same results.

Do you think the NIST data is flawed too?

.

Report Card

Reading | _____ D- ___
Writing | _____ C _____
Rithmatic | _____ F _____
Plays Well With Others | _____ F _____
Prospects for Academic Advancement | Very Poor

Note to Parent
Mr. / Mrs. Christopher: Christopher is underperforming. He is showing some classic developmental issues. He is frequently distracted. He rarely pays attention in class. Disturbingly, he is aggressive and constantly getting into altercations with the other children. We are recommending a consultation with you, the Guidance Counselor & the District's Psychiatric Resource, ADHD work-up, with consideration of appropriate medications. I know that this course may sound extreme, but left unaddressed, we feel that his issues will seriously limit his long term academic achievement.



Parent / Guardian Signature


________________________________________


Sign and Return by: Monday
​

 

[HyJinX]

.

Report Card

Reading | _____ D- ___
Writing | _____ C _____
Rithmatic | _____ F _____
Plays Well With Others | _____ F _____
Prospects for Academic Advancement | Very Poor

Note to Parent
Mr. / Mrs. Christopher: Christopher is underperforming. He is showing some classic developmental issues. He is frequently distracted. He rarely pays attention in class. Disturbingly, he is aggressive and constantly getting into altercations with the other children. We are recommending a consultation with you, the Guidance Counselor & the District's Psychiatric Resource, ADHD work-up, with consideration of appropriate medications. I know that this course may sound extreme, but left unaddressed, we feel that his issues render will seriously limit his long term academic achievement.



Parent / Guardian Signature


________________________________________


Sign and Return by: Monday
​

Now that was funny.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris,

Notice the second quote. Notice it says YET!! Yet mean, it WILL loose its integrity later, but at theis time, it has not lost its support.

Notice that word YET....It plays a very important role.

 

[tfk]

You point out my mistake and then make one of your own. You are wrong about column 69.
-0.5s Column 66 fails [Group 8]
4.3s Columns 59, 62, 65 & 68 fail [Group 7] G6 & G8 loading
5.3s Columns 60, 63 and 69 fail [Group 8]

I have already corrected the omission of column 66 in post #894.
"Column 66 [group 8] had failed for no apparent reason a few seconds earlier, [damage occurred 7 hours earlier] leaving column 65 unsupported to the south. Other than that, there was no damage to the girders surrounding the columns in group 7 on any floor."

Care to make a wager on that, Chris?

You problem is that you read words. But you've shown no ability to comprehend the ideas behind them.

And you've got a 'tude that'd choke a mule.

Everyone has been telling you CLEARLY that you've been getting creamed in this discussion. You should listen. You are the only one who thinks that you are holding your own.

You really want to make sure that you don't get caught holding your own in public - in the Pee Wee Herman sense...