29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[tfk]

This is the same as stating garbage in - garbage out.

.
Actually, it's worse than that.

Chandler had a four course dinner for two from a five star restaurant. Complete with a $250 bottles of wine, and desert.

He took the whole dinner, including desert, threw it all into a blender, then added the wine.

This is how he created his "Garbage in".

And I've done a little calculation to prove it.

I've taken Chandlers "garbage" data, and run it thru the blender again. And I've run the blender at exactly the same speed. For exactly the same length of time. Just to show what it does to data.

This is a table of the linear portion of his velocity "raw data", AFTER he'd used his "center difference approximation". I've taken Chandler's input and calculated the step-wise accelerations by applying the same center difference approximation to the velocity data.

And these are the accelerations that his technique produces.

Interp Time __|__ Inst Accel __|__ % G __
(sec) | (in/sec^2) |
1.88 | 42.8 | 133
2.13 | 30.4 | 94
2.38 | 52.4 | 163
2.63 | 13.6 | 42
2.88 | 42.4 | 132
3.13 | 23.6 | 73
3.38 | 42.0 | 130
3.63 | 10.4 | 32
3.88 | 35.6 | 111

.

From the perspective of Chris' mindless objection to my "108%G" results, my performing this math operation on the velocity data is PRECISELY as valid as his performing it on the position data in order to obtain his velocities.

Christopher7 was objecting because the technique that I used gave a short term acceleration value of 108%. Well, Chris, here is Chandler's results. Using Chandler's techniques.

What do you think of those accelerations, Chris??

133% G, 94% G, 163% G, 42% G, 132% G, 73% G, 130% G, 32% G, 111% G.

Those data errors are just as "real" as my "108% G".

My technique is better.

Tom

 

[tfk]

NIST did not have any doubts about the results. Why do you?

.
Somebody slap me.

Did Chris just advocate for "blind acceptance of NIST's results"??

Did Chris just advocate the taking of the careful results from several hundred of the world's most expert structural engineers ...

... engineers who know that their results disprove his lunacy ....

... and to TWIST those results 180° from the informed consensus of the people who know intimately the theory, the practice, the history, the methodology, the raw data, the error analyses, the cross confirmation and the results ...

... to claim that their results support his Twoofer idiocy...??

Gee, I sit in awe at the feet of a colossus of stupid.

Kinda leaves me breathless.


tk

PS. I almost forgot, Chris. Chandler cannot say "it fell AT free fall acceleration". For the a bunch of math & experimental method reasons that you don't understand.

Because, you think that blind "vernacular" trumps a depth of understanding & experience. You're wrong, of course.

But here's some vernacular back at cha.

Chandler cannot say "it fell AT G", because the data that he used was generated by a math operation appropriately called a "central difference APPROXIMATION".

Can't get exact output from approximate input, Chris.

 

[Christopher7]

As Newtons Bit has pointed out to you these two statements are in no way mutually exclusive.

He did not 'point out', he glibly denied.

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.

"With no fires on the west side of Floors 10 through 14" i.e. there was no damage to the floor-column connections in any direction on floors 11-15.

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.

I have read it and there is no mention of floor damage to the floor connections around columns 59 and 62.

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:

That says the same as paragraph as on pg 612

 

[Christopher7]

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

My emphasis.

He's trying to gloss over his former statement "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Changing the word "no " to "negligible" is sophistry. He had already correctly said "no".

 

[dropzone]

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.

C7, as you may not have yet picked up that the term, "obtuse," in this case, is not necessarily a Geometry term, though a tool cut at an acute angle would be more effective at making and proving an argument. A tool cut at an obtuse angle just bumps over the same points, over and over, and accomplishes nothing because it isn't really doing any work.

ETA, because some people are too obtuse to understand why they are obtuse: Aw, jeeze! Just look it up, if you can.

 

[tsig]

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.

So whatever happened you are right? Only you can read the report and find the truth?

 

[triforcharity]

"With no fires on the west side of Floors 10 through 14" i.e. there was no damage to the floor-column connections in any direction on floors 11-15.

I have read it and there is no mention of floor damage to the floor connections around columns 59 and 62.

......

Ok Chris, since I am begining to understand the word "Futile", I will try to put this in the most simple form.


Notice this picture.

Now, I added the big yellow arrow. Notice the small round red dots near the columns?? Notice what it says at the bottom??

HOLY CRAP!! I FOUND THE BROKEN COLUMN CONNECTIONS!! If you had looked at the report, you would have found it. If this indicate that there is connection damage, what do you think it is?? It not a cell phone connection sir. Or even a love connection. Its a floor connection. Now, since I understand you arae a carpenter, what do you propose would happen if you took a 2x4, and nailed it inbetween two other 2x4's that are standing up vertically, and then stood on it and cut one side? It wouldn't magically float there, you would fall to the ground.

Now, as far as the fires go. What do you think caused this connection failure?? Maybe a gigantic piece of a building falling into it?????


Please answer this, and do not change the subject, move the goal posts, or even ask me another question.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

"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. [Groups 3 & 4] 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."

In any event, you are a terrible quote miner.

JREF denier sophistry to infer researching and quoting relative passages somehow lessens their validity.

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

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.

You have just demonstrated your inability to understand what you read.
"The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region because there were no fires observed on the west side[FONT=&quot] on floors 10 through 14"

What part of "in this region" don't you understand?
[/FONT]

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"

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

Another example of not understanding what you have read. If the girder to column connections at column 59 had not failed yet, then column 59 still had north-south lateral support. You can't have it both ways.

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

I gave the page number:
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]

 

[Christopher7]

"With no fires on the west side of Floors 10 through 14" i.e. there was no damage to the floor-column connections in any direction on floors 11-15.

Notice this picture.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/RIGHTHERE.jpg

Now, I added the big yellow arrow. Notice the small round red dots near the columns?? Notice what it says at the bottom??

HOLY CRAP!! I FOUND THE BROKEN COLUMN CONNECTIONS!! If you had looked at the report, you would have found it. If this indicate that there is connection damage, what do you think it is?? It not a cell phone connection sir. Or even a love connection. Its a floor connection. Now, since I understand you arae a carpenter, what do you propose would happen if you took a 2x4, and nailed it inbetween two other 2x4's that are standing up vertically, and then stood on it and cut one side? It wouldn't magically float there, you would fall to the ground.

Now, as far as the fires go. What do you think caused this connection failure?? Maybe a gigantic piece of a building falling into it?????

Please answer this, and do not change the subject, move the goal posts, or even ask me another question.

You are babbling incoherently.

Why the red dots next to columns 59 and 62?
NIST specifically said there were no fires in that region on floors 10-14.
Where does it say there was a girder to column failure between column 68 and 69?
Where does it say there was a girder to column failure to column the north side of column 65?

You just put red dots around without references to where it says that damage occurred. The fact is, none of that damage happened except the failure of column 66 and the girder between columns 66 and 65.

 

[triforcharity]

The red dots indicate where a beaam has become detached from the column.

Yes, there may not have been fires in that vicinity, but a giant building falling in that vaacinity might possibly cause some damage.
What else would be connected to that column?? Aa school bus?? Come on Chris, work with me here.

It says it in page 133 of NCSTAR VOL 1-9a. Page 133 of the PDF. Read the page.

Why else would it say that there was a G-C failure to the north side of C-69?? Because there, I don't know, was a C_G failure??? Its certainly not because the Yankees play baseball.
I didn't put red dots on anything. NIST put red dots on the spots where they noticed G-C connection failures. It notes why those red dots are there in the second paragraph on page 133 of the report. Please tell me you actually looked at the page in question.

Go to that page of the report. So that I know you did it, please tell me what the very first word is on that page. Untill you do, I will know that you are not trying to understand anything, you're just trying to sound cool. BTW, epic fail on that attempt.

 

[alienentity]

Oh, Chris, while you're busy failing to make realistic, knowledgeable arguments on the other points, you've neglected to offer up ANYTHING to back up you earlier assertions/claims about freefall acceleration and controlled demolition.

At this point I am treating your inability to respond to simple questions as an abdication of your earlier positions. That's fine with me, and as it should be, since they are indefensible as stated. (you are aware of the self-contradictory nature of your claims I hope)
Your assertions here and elsewhere are being quickly exposed as bafflegab, and if you really take yourself seriously as an intellectual, I suggest you abandon the tenets of 9/11 truth and embrace instead a more accurate and intelligent path of understanding.

Best wishes and good luck.

AE

 

[alienentity]

To TFK, triforcharity and others posting today (thanks for the insights, btw) I suspect you've had the same experience as I have regarding WTC 7: as one continues to study the collapse of this building, it becomes more and more obvious that it was not like any kind of controlled demolition. It was unlike any CD that has ever been executed, and that ever WILL be executed.
The sheer arrogance of some truthers as they try to impose CD on the collapse is notable, as is their willful ignorance of the basic facts, and their refusal to deal with the subject in a mature manner.

They deserve reprimand for such malicious,revisionist efforts.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, it gives me something to do. Lord knows here in the small town I work for, there isn't much going on in the way of fire/medical calls.

But yes, every times I reaad a little more of the NIST reports, it becomes even more clear what transpired on that day. Its facinating. And I have only looked at the NIST reports for WTC 7. I haven't even TOUCHED WTC 1&2 yet.

 

[Christopher7]

The red dots indicate where a beaam has become detached from the column.

The beams were not attached to the columns, they were attached to the girders which were attached to the columns.

Yes, there may not have been fires in that vicinity, but a giant building falling in that vaacinity might possibly cause some damage.

The debris damage did not damage the core girders. See 1-9 Vol.1 pg 182 [226]

"It is possible that some additional interior damage occurred"

"The damage estimates were based on the observed exterior damage to the south and west faces of the building from the visual evidence discussed above (Figures 5-83 and 5-89).1 In addition, interview accounts by individuals who were in or around WTC 7, documented damage to the building at 130 Liberty Street (Figure 2–32), and engineering judgment were used to develop estimates of interior structural damage between the exterior walls and the core."

"The core columns and girders were assumed to be structurally undamaged."

What else would be connected to that column?? Aa school bus?? Come on Chris, work with me here.

A toaster oven??

It says it in page 133 of NCSTAR VOL 1-9a. Page 133 of the PDF. Read the page. Why else would it say that there was a G-C failure to the north side of C-69??

It didn't.

Because there, I don't know, was a C_G failure??? Its certainly not because the Yankees play baseball.
I didn't put red dots on anything. NIST put red dots on the spots where they noticed G-C connection failures. It notes why those red dots are there in the second paragraph on page 133 of the report.

No

Please tell me you actually looked at the page in question.

Go to that page of the report. So that I know you did it, please tell me what the very first word is on that page. Untill you do, I will know that you are not trying to understand anything, you're just trying to sound cool. BTW, epic fail on that attempt.

1-9 Vol.1 pg 89 [pdf 133]
"To organize the images in this database . . . "

 

[Christopher7]

Oh, Chris, while you're busy failing to make realistic, knowledgeable arguments on the other points,

Denial

you've neglected to offer up ANYTHING to back up you earlier assertions/claims about freefall acceleration and controlled demolition.
AE

See posts: 908, 921, 925, 955, 967, 973, 974, 980, 985, 988, and 990.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris, Your using the wrong report. I quoted and pulled stuff from NCSTAR V 1-9a

Your using another version. No wonder you don't understand.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9A.pdf

They this one here. Its the one that I pulled that graphic from.

Now, you are correct. The beams were connected to the girders which were attached to the columns, your absolutely correct. But, this makes it EVEN WORSE!!

Because there are many other connection onto the parts that fail, there is even worse damage to the structural integrity.

Please, go to that specific page, and tell me what you think that page is saying. Now, take into consideration, at the point that they are talking about this, it is a simulation on a computer, and they have just input the damage from WTC 1 into the computer, and it is showing what has happened.

Just read the right report. Tell me again, the very first few words on the page. Please use the right report.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Quick tip: a girder is a beam, a beam is not necessarily a girder.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

"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. [Groups 3 & 4] 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."

JREF denier sophistry to infer researching and quoting relative passages somehow lessens their validity.

You have just demonstrated your inability to understand what you read.
"The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region because there were no fires observed on the west side[FONT=&quot] on floors 10 through 14"

What part of "in this region" don't you understand?
[/FONT]
Another example of not understanding what you have read. If the girder to column connections at column 59 had not failed yet, then column 59 still had north-south lateral support. You can't have it both ways.

I gave the page number:
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]

1. I don't know what you're quoting, but it's not from the final NIST report. Try using quotes from that, and actually copying them correctly. Because what you're using now, DOESNT EXIST. I'm just going to assume that like most typical truthers, you're just adding what you want to the NIST report to get it to say what you want.

2. You don't know what lateral support means. What element do you think provides lateral support to the columns?

 

[triforcharity]

Newtons,

I think that Chris believes that the peanut butter on his sandwich provides lateral support, but I could be wrong.

BTW, since you seem to be very informed, can you find anywhere I was wrong in my posts??

 

[Bluesky]

I still have the same question for C7 about the odious ae911truth article that this thread is all about.

Where ae911truth 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

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.