• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

Ok Chris, I went back and found your quote again. I re-read the entire page. This is NOT talking about Group 7's columns. This is more talking about group 8, because it says, "Directly behind the severed exterior columns".

I will put together a slideshow, and try to explain it the best I can.
 
-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]

Where can I find this at in the report??
 
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.
.
Tri,

Lemme show you a trick to get the get the big picture quick. It's a real time saver...

Get the two documents, NCSTAR1-9 vol 1, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2.

Your job, "should you choose to accept it", is to get a feel for the whole building. FAST. In less than 10 minutes.

Take about 1 minute to scan thru the table of contents to see how each doc is organized. Just the big picture.

Then scan thru the two of them in about 5 minutes (each). Don't get bogged down in any details. Don't read anything.

Then set the doc so that it shows one full page on your screen and start clicking. Fast. Look at the pictures. And think. About 1 - 2 second for any page that has a diagram. No time for text. If you see something that catches your eye, check it out. But not more than about 10 seconds or so.

You're trying to answer the pudknocker's question on the west core, so pay extra attention to the area around around where the damage is that led to the collapse of the west core. Try to imagine how the collapse moves thru the building.

Try to get a sense for the height of the whole building. Too many of the floor plans have you thinking of it as tho it were just 5 or 10 stories.

But most important, don't just look at the pictures. Try to understand them.

This incident is not hard at all. You know where the failure was. In a lot of these, you don't know what failed. So you've got to go thru a bunch of "what if's".

Plug in the known damage & I think that you'll start to get a real feel for what's got Chris' panties in a bunch - the collapse of the west core.

Do it on your own. When you're done, you can hit this reveal button and see if what stood out to me, stands out for you.

Lemme know how it goes.

Tom


The important elements:
The height of the building fig 12-6
the concrete floor provides incredible bending stiffness to the columns. If the floors break ...? Fig 10-6 thru 10-20 (even numbered)
the 5th floor. Notice how thick it is. Why so thick? (i.e., "expensive")
The triangular trusses on the 5th floor. Fig 12-10 What does it do? What happens if it fails?
The damaged areas Fig 9-2 vol. 2, pdf pg 28.
 
Last edited:
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.
.
Chris,

Your ignorance is a comforting constant.
Your arrogance is amusing.
You attitude is starting to chap my butt.

If your good Mr. Chandler had done a COMPETENT analysis, exactly as I said about 2 days ago, his acceleration vs. time curve would look something like this...

picture.php


The dashed lines are called error bands. These are just examples, not the real thing. In order to do it right, Chandler (or whomever) needs to analyze his experimental setup. I expect that Chandler's data would be close to the above.

The point is that one's analysis can say nothing about the "real" value of acceleration, except that it falls within the error bands. And the solid line is your "best" approximation.

tom

PS. You wouldn't know "science" from your sister's left bippy.

PPS. Chandler produces nothing. Without a competent error analysis, you have no results.
 
Last edited:
Ok Chris, I went back and found your quote again. I re-read the entire page. This is NOT talking about Group 7's columns. This is more talking about group 8, because it says, "Directly behind the severed exterior columns".

I will put together a slideshow, and try to explain it the best I can.
"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."
 
.
Chris,

Your ignorance is a comforting constant.
Your arrogance is amusing.
You attitude is starting to chap my butt.

If your good Mr. Chandler had done a COMPETENT analysis, exactly as I said about 2 days ago, his acceleration vs. time curve would look something like this...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=1273[/qimg]

The dashed lines are called error bands. These are just examples, not the real thing. In order to do it right, Chandler (or whomever) needs to analyze his experimental setup. I expect that Chandler's data would be close to the above.

The point is that one's analysis can say nothing about the "real" value of acceleration, except that it falls within the error bands. And the solid line is your "best" approximation.

tom

PS. You wouldn't know "science" from your sister's left bippy.

PPS. Chandler produces nothing. Without a competent error analysis, you have no results.

I think he sees the word "error" and immediately thinks we're saying "incorrect". This is where having a background in science is really rather helpful.
 
Yes, you dodges the question.

NIST confirmed David Chandler's data.

Do you think the NIST data is flawed?

Let me when you'll respond to the question "Christopher7, when we say error in the data, what do you think we're referring to?" and then I'll get back to your question.

Answering my question with another question is not an acceptable response. It's a dodge.
 
Let me when you'll respond to the question "Christopher7, when we say error in the data, what do you think we're referring to?" and then I'll get back to your question.

Answering my question with another question is not an acceptable response. It's a dodge.
You are saying the input data is inaccurate. NIST came up with the same result. Do you think their input data was incorrect too?
 
You are saying the input data is inaccurate. NIST came up with the same result. Do you think their input data was incorrect too?

Chris, you've just demonstrated to everyone's perfect satisfaction that you have not the faintest idea what anyone in this thread, including you, is talking about. You're shouting nonsense in a language you don't understand.

Dave
 
.
Chris,
[childish insult deleted]
If your good Mr. Chandler had done a COMPETENT analysis, exactly as I said about 2 days ago, his acceleration vs. time curve would look something like this...
Mr. Chandler did not do the analysis, the on line computer program did the analysis and your contorted analysis is bunk.
 
Mr. Chandler did not do the analysis, the on line computer program did the analysis and your contorted analysis is bunk.


You are referring to the work of someone who is vastly your intellectual superior as bunk. You know nothing. You can't hope to criticize a real engineer from a standpoint of ignorance.
 
Chris, you've just demonstrated to everyone's perfect satisfaction that you have not the faintest idea what anyone in this thread, including you, is talking about. You're shouting nonsense in a language you don't understand.

Dave
Violation of rule 12
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom