29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[hokie]

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it. You are engaging in the denier tactic "nitpick and babble"

No end to the determination of C7 to spout what he calls double talk. I should point out to C7 that he is even getting the use of double talk wrong.

 

[hokie]

No one here is qualified to dispute NIST and David Chandler.

Chandler made serious mistakes. You can't understand it.

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it.

You don't know the meaning of the words or you wouldn't say this.

He does. The error is insignificant.

Again you don't understand. Fine. Take the time to learn.

This is high school physics and he used an on line program that he has his students use.
The engineers at NIST agree with him and disagree with you-all.

OK. So not only does Chandler misuse the program he also encourages others to do it. That's sad. And the last sentence is wrong. Some really smart people here are trying to assist you. Take the time to learn.

The lessons people are trying to tell you are the sorts of lessons I started being taught in 8th grade. Can't say it sunk in fast enough, but these are important lessons.

Despite your bravado, misuse of the language (even double talk for heaven's sake), and dogged determination not to learn I still think you can do it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am not claiming to know more than NIST. I have simply pointed out two mutually exclusive statements in the NIST report. They cannot both be true. i.e. NIST is lying.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"As the interior columns failed. the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces due to the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward."


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."

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements.

 

[Christopher7]

Talk about old chestnuts... It's not on me to refute your wild delusions which you haven't proven in the first place.

NIST lied about damage to the core columns in Group 7. I presented the quotes from the final report that confirm this.

I'm not interested in your games.

You're not interested in the truth about the lies in the NIST report.

I have sat here and watched how people here have explained your misunderstanding to you, repeatedly, you have already been refuted.

Not

Yet you just ignore it all continue to beat this horse long after it's dead, playing the same game over and over...

The game is called "denial, diversion and defamation" and you are playing it now.

 

[Christopher7]

These two statements are mutually exclusive.
They cannot both be true. i.e. NIST is lying.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"As the interior columns failed. the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces due to the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward."


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."

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements.

Columns 59 and 62 did not loose lateral support in any direction on floors 10-14.
Therefore, they did not loose north-south lateral support on 11 floors.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Columns 59 and 62 did not loose lateral support in any direction on floors 10-14.
Therefore, they did not loose north-south lateral support on 11 floors.

Given your poor understanding of statistical words as shown earlier, are you positive that your reading comprehension of engineering terms is sufficient to understand this?

 

[Christopher7]

are you positive that your reading comprehension of engineering terms is sufficient to understand this?

Please

Lateral support is plain English.

Do you have a rebuttal, or just sarcastic questions?

 

[tsig]

More JERFer logic.

CD's usually fall at near free fall acceleration. The fact that this one fell at free fall acceleration leaves no other alternative.

So since CD's do not fall at free fall but this one did that proves CD?

 

[Christopher7]

So since CD's do not fall at free fall but this one did that proves CD?

It proves that the NIST hypothesis does not result in the observed collapse. It does not include 105 feet of free fall acceleration. As Mr. Sunder said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" and "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."

Shyam Sunder Technical briefing 8 26 08
The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous.

 

[alienentity]

CD's usually fall at near free fall acceleration.

According to what data? Can you provide some real-world examples?

The fact that this one fell at free fall acceleration leaves no other alternative.

Why is that? There's no evidence whatsoever of explosive demolition partway thru building 7's collapse to support your claim, so the most likely explanation IS an alternative to your theory.

Using Occam's Razor, CD is not the top choice - it is far too complicated, doesn't fit with the totality of data, and involves a number of highly improbable and completely theoretical scenarios of conspiracy.
As opposed to the stronger, mainstream understanding, which does actually fit the data exactly, with no exceptions.

We have the causal relationship in abundance; a 1000 ft tall skyscraper causes extensive (well documented, unfortunately for truthers) structural damage and initiates extensive multifloor fires. The building weakens noticeably (again well documented, unfortunately for truthers) and eventually collapses in a progressive fashion over a time period of........
at LEAST 14 seconds! Oh dear. Those pesky facts again eh?

Please, just for fun, go find us a comparable controlled demolition which fits these parameters precisely. You need a precedent. I know, I know, you can't find one. It's no fair is it? Score a point for reality, zero for you.

Otherwise Occam's Razor cuts your nuts off and hands them to you every time, dude.


btw, the loss of support was NOT instantaneous, unlike a controlled demolition. Once you actually know the facts, you will see this and give up with nonsensical fantasies of silent explosives with no shockwaves etc (which your theory requires)

 

[Norseman]

I am not claiming to know more than NIST. I have simply pointed out two mutually exclusive statements in the NIST report. They cannot both be true. i.e. NIST is lying.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"As the interior columns failed. the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces due to the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward."


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."

As Newtons Bit has pointed out to you these two statements are in no way mutually exclusive. The first statement is discussing the floor connections between the exterior columns on the west face of WTC 7 and the closest core columns. It is not discussing lateral support between the columns inside the core area, as the second statement does. This is quiet obvious.

Regarding the second statement I strongly suggest that you go to NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. Start reading from the last paragraph on page 81 (pdf 131) and down to page 86. Especially look at figure 4-20 on page 83 (pdf 133) and the following figures. Then is should be very evident why the two statements you quoted are in fact fully consistent.

But NIST is not claiming that Group 7 lost lateral support and buckled before the main collapse moving from east to west reached it in the real world event, they are just describing what the simulation with debris damage from WTC 1 showed. As NIST writes on page 606 (pdf 268) in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2:

For the no debris impact scenario, the horizontal progression of column failures occurred in order from east to west after collapse initiation (i.e. buckling of Column 79) and the vertical progression failures on the east side. This scenario matched the observations where the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse. This suggests that the damage scenario that was imposed in the best estimate analysis was slightly more severe than actually occurred.

My emphasis.

 

[Norseman]

It proves that the NIST hypothesis does not result in the observed collapse. It does not include 105 feet of free fall acceleration. As Mr. Sunder said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" and "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."

Shyam Sunder Technical briefing 8 26 08
The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous.

From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009):

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

My emphasis.

It is really time for you to do something else C7.

 

[triforcharity]

Norseman,

I noticed a key word there. Essentially. I don't this Chris understands this word. I understand it quite perfectly. It is saying that " For the most part, because there are certain errors in our findings,(margin of error) it fell at free fall speed BECAUSE THE S*** under it weren't doing jack S*** for the rest of the building."

Is that what it is saying??? I think so. I just like to put things into simple terms. Its the way I roll.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Please

Lateral support is plain English.

Do you have a rebuttal, or just sarcastic questions?

The reason why those two statements aren't mutually exclusive, is because of the reason that the columns became unsupported in the N-S direction. It was not from fire damage, which the detailed analysis says on pg. 588. It is because of the damage occurred to the western end of the building from the horizontal progression of the collapse. Which is what I said a long time ago.

In any event, you are a terrible quote miner.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward.

this is not what it says on 1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]

It says:

The floor connections to the west face columns had not failed above floor 9 because no fires were observed on west side of Floors 10 through 14. The intact floor framing pulled the exterior columns inward...

Now then. Notice how the columns it's referring to are the WEST FACE columns. These are not columns 59&62. You added that yourself. And you are wrong. Stop adding things or changing words in quotes. I know it's a standard "truther" tactic, but it's an OLD one. At least try to come up with something new to amuse us.

What you appear to actually be trying to quote is from 1-9 Vol.2 pg 606-6077 [pdf 268-269]

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 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.

Yea, notice that little word that I highlighted that you forgot to put in? It's kind of important. See my argument above.

I can't even find where your second "mutually exclusive" statement came from. Are you using the draft version?

 

[triforcharity]

C7,

Here is an illustration I want you to explain to us. What do you think it is saying??

 

[FineWine]

Please
This is high school physics and he used an on line program that he has his students use.
The engineers at NIST agree with him and disagree with you-all.

Furthermore, your claims of expertise are meaningless.
The fact that you are claiming to know better than the engineers at NIST proves you are full of it.
Who do you think you are kidding, each other?

Stop rolling your eyes. You are an agenda-driven fanatic who doesn't know what he's raving about.
The engineers at NIST have refuted your baseless nonsense about explosives: there were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex.
There is no disagreement between the real engineers on this forum and NIST.
You simply can't understand anything anyone tells you.

 

[FineWine]

I am not claiming to know more than NIST. I have simply pointed out two mutually exclusive statements in the NIST report. They cannot both be true. i.e. NIST is lying.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"As the interior columns failed. the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces due to the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward."


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."

You, a scientific illiterate flogging a mad political agenda, claim to have discovered something all the world's engineers and physicists have missed. You should get together with Psikeyhackr and market your ignorance.

 

[FineWine]

NIST lied about damage to the core columns in Group 7. I presented the quotes from the final report that confirm this.

You're not interested in the truth about the lies in the NIST report.

Not

The game is called "denial, diversion and defamation" and you are playing it now.

There are no--zero--"lies" in the NIST Report. You have been repeatedly exposed as an uninformed fanatic. We can see that you are too obtuse to understand what the real engineers try to tell you. It's your problem--deal with it.

 

[triforcharity]

Norseman, the next few pages also help explain exactly what happened. I had not seen this last section of the report, or I most certainly would have pointed it out much earlier. This explains exactly what happened.

Thanks.

 

[The Platypus]

NIST lied about damage to the core columns in Group 7. I presented the quotes from the final report that confirm this.

You're not interested in the truth about the lies in the NIST report.

Not

The game is called "denial, diversion and defamation" and you are playing it now.

Once again, you seem to think i am going to play along with your delusions. I already told you that I'm won't and now your all mad... LOL

What i am not interested in, is your cult driven nonsense as i clearly stated. If what you had was the truth you wouldn't have too play games and claim it's "the truth", trying so hard to sell it.

Your responses to what i said, have only further shown that you are selling snake oil and you aren't very good at it.