29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Grizzly Bear]

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.”

Speaking of which, it's not that people don't think any engineers agree with them. Just no competent ones. I decided to have a glance of their paper as described in the OP and I just got reminded of why I thought they were nuts to begin with. They know engineering terms but they certainly don't know mechanics too well which highlights the fundamental reason why they are, and always will be without credibility.

 

[alienentity]

Denial

OK fine, I say you're failing to make realistic arguments, you call it denial. I agree, you're denying reality. At least we agree there. LOL

In my post 1010 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4868316#post4868316 I challenged C7's claim that

'CD's usually fall at near free fall acceleration.'

I asked 'According to what data? Can you provide some real-world examples?'
..Please, just for fun, go find us a comparable controlled demolition which fits these parameters precisely. You need a precedent'

A precedent is needed to substantiate such a claim as Chris makes. He was unable or unwilling to back his claim up, so I considered it retracted. Today, he offers this:

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

Chris! These are simply references to David Chandler?!? and NIST analysis of WTC7, focusing ONLY on the brief period at freefall acceleration that happened about 9 seconds into a 14 second progressive collapse.

I asked you for data from ACTUAL, VERIFIED, CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS to back up one specific claim, and you have completely failed to do so.*
(* well, perhaps Chris thinks that WTC7 IS a real-world example of a typical controlled demolition, which might explain a few things about his process....ahem)

Once again, just so it's very clear, Chris cannot back up his claim, 'CD's usually fall at near free fall acceleration'. Nor can Chris illuminate us as to WHEN in a typical controlled demolition event freefall acceleration would be most likely to occur, and how that might relate to what happened in WTC 7.

Nor can Chris find an example of a controlled demolition that would come close to matching the WTC 7 collapse. That is, where the collapse occurs not at the bottom of a building, but partway up.

Nor can Chris find a controlled demolition video WITH AUDIO, that doesn't include giant, audible explosions which are followed shortly thereafter by the building collapsing. He apparently is so narrow in his knowledge and so poor in his analysis that:

1) He hasn't noticed that close-up audio/video of WTC 7's collapse shows no audible explosions of any kind

2) nor any other visual evidence of explosions JUST PRIOR to the collapse initiation, such as the usual bright flashes as exterior columns are cut.

Since it is NOT POSSIBLE for Chris to find a known CD which doesn't include the two features listed above (unless of course the video doesn't include audio), he will be unable to produce one for us. He may not realize it yet but these inconvenient truths are stacking up against his juvenile and sloppy scholarship to the point where it is not worthwhile discussing his ideas further.

You fail Chris, on most of the major points (including the fact that you cannot competently quote from the final NIST report) up to and including the fact that you are relying on a report by a group of truther agenda-driven zealots who don't have the qualifications to do the work they're attempting. Take David Chandler, for example. Can you name the academic training he has relevant to building demolition and structural engineering?

You're embarrassing yourself by relying on such incompetent academics as A&E for 9/11 truth, and by your arrogance and ignorance of basic matters.

You fail.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Intellectual cowardice.

You will not answer the question directly.

Please answer this question directly:

How do you propose that a plot, plan, or conspiracy which would be 100% impossible to enact, not to mention cover up for all time, is possible?

 

[Christopher7]

You did not address your mistakes in interpretation that I pointed out. There was no damage to the floors or girder to column connections around columns 59 and 62 on floors 11-15 because there were no fires in that area on floors 10-14.

1. I don't know what you're quoting, but it's not from the final NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf

Page 612 paragraph 7
"For the debris impact damage scenario, . . . . . 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."

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

The girders and floor slabs.

There is no set criteria for the terms beam and girder. Generally speaking, a girder is a large beam. In this case, the floor beams are supported by a larger beam so that is referred to as a girder.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You did not address your mistakes in interpretation that I pointed out. There was no damage to the floors or girder to column connections around columns 59 and 62 on floors 11-15 because there were no fires in that area on floors 10-14.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf

Page 612 paragraph 7
"For the debris impact damage scenario, . . . . . 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."

Hey, it looks like you're actually quoting the final NIST report now, good job.

Now then, why don't you do everyone a favor and get rid of that ellipsis and quote the whole thing.

For the debris impact scenario, some of the interior columns on the west began buckling as the horizontal progression of interior column failures approached the middle of the core. For example, the middle line of interior columns buckled before the two north-south lines 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

In response to my question of what provides lateral support, you wrote.

The girders and floor slabs.

You would be wrong. The girders and floor slabs provide a load path to the structural elements that provide lateral support. A floor slab and pinned end beams do not constitute lateral support. These elements must all be tied to a Lateral Force Resisting System. In the WTC7, this is the exterior columns which constitute a moment frame. The LFRS that braces these columns in the N-S direction is the East and West face line of moment frames. These had already buckled by this point. NIST says that all of the exterior columns had buckled during the vertical progression of failure, but I'm gonna make an educated guess and say that west line failed before the north and south lines. And since there wasn't even a connection to the east face exterior columns... well you get the idea.

There is no set criteria for the terms beam and girder. Generally speaking, a girder is a large beam. In this case, the floor beams are supported by a larger beam so that is referred to as a girder.

You told Triforcharity that there were no beams connected to the columns. Have you learned what girder and beam means? Let me further educate you. A girder is not a large beam. It can be, it usually is, but it isn't always a large beam. It is a structural bending element that supports other members besides floors. I.e. other beams frame into it and/or columns are support by it, etc.

 

[Christopher7]

Speaking of which, it's not that people don't think any engineers agree with them. Just no competent ones. I decided to have a glance of their paper as described in the OP and I just got reminded of why I thought they were nuts to begin with. They know engineering terms but they certainly don't know mechanics too well which highlights the fundamental reason why they are, and always will be without credibility.

The list contains professionals of different disciplines.

William W. Acri is an expert in explosives.

Antonio Arthay is a licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of experience in building design.

Anders Björkman has 40 years of steel structural design, operations, damage analysis and repairs (of ships) but the principles are same for other structures, e.g. towers.

Jim Bomford is a civil engineer and former structural engineer practising in the Province of BC for thirty five years.

All the professionals listed are highly qualified.

Fanatic OCT supporters try to infer that they are not and "move the goalposts" to "only structural engineers with tall building experience are qualified to understand the collapses." This is poppycock.

 

[triforcharity]

Holy crap, so you are saying that because someone builds ships, they are absolutely qualified?? Not quite. The math is completely different. How many buildings do you know that have to deal with water displacement?? Not many right???

Anyway, you are absolutely right. Fire did NOT damage the beams/girders/big pieces of metal. The structural damage from (I am taking an educated guess) the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper crashing into it.

Notice this one line.....its VERY important. Please explain what this means if I am wrong.

page 274, of NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2

"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."

if it had been heat damage, it would have said thermal expansion, or something of the like.

Now, please explain what exactly this sentence means.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Holy crap, so you are saying that because someone builds ships, they are absolutely qualified?? Not quite. The math is completely different. How many buildings do you know that have to deal with water displacement?? Not many right???

Honestly speaking, it's just an appeal to authority. These are all the engineers that they could muster after almost 8 years.

The "debunker" side has the entire backing of ASCE and SEA.

In any event, appeals to authority don't really matter. I'd like to see them actually write something substantial. They don't have the resources to put something together like what NIST did, but you'd think if they had all all the knowledge and resources they could write some white papers like Bazant.

But right now, they're trying to use their qualifications to convince people. That won't work against people who are scientifically trained, or structural engineers like myself. You need to actually prove a statement. And since this is engineering, it should be done with math.

 

[Christopher7]

Hey, it looks like you're actually quoting the final NIST report now, good job.

Please That's the same quote and you are trying to slither out from under your false accusation.

Now then, why don't you do everyone a favor and get rid of that ellipsis and quote the whole thing.

The first part of the paragraph states that Group 7 collapsed before Groups 3 & 4. That is a separate point.

The last sentence acknowledges that the scenario does not result in the observed collapse.
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse."

I quoted the part of the paragraph that is relevant to the point. NIST lied about the lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors to the columns in Group 7.

You have no rebuttal because there is no rebuttal.

So you try to change the subject to me.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Honestly speaking, it's just an appeal to authority. These are all the engineers that they could muster after almost 8 years.

The "debunker" side has the entire backing of ASCE and SEA.

In any event, appeals to authority don't really matter. I'd like to see them actually write something substantial. They don't have the resources to put something together like what NIST did, but you'd think if they had all all the knowledge and resources they could write some white papers like Bazant.

But right now, they're trying to use their qualifications to convince people. That won't work against people who are scientifically trained, or structural engineers like myself. You need to actually prove a statement. And since this is engineering, it should be done with math.

When I was still taking my undergraduate studio courses we were often assigned the task of performing case studies in order to understand not only the urban context of designs, but the ideas behind them, the precedents they considered, and to a lesser extent -- construction. These fueled the ideas behind our own designs on the projects we did, even though studio projects themselves aren't actually built. Many of the engineers pioneered by the TM fail to do such studies properly, which is one of my major criticisms of them. It's also a demonstration of why the number of years practicing in the profession, while crucial are nothing nearly as important as being able to apply those years of experience. I'm not quite sure what C7 hopes to accomplish by ignoring this, but his adamant refusal to read any literature at all outside of the CT nuttery is one of his biggest short falls in seeing this issue clearly

 

[Christopher7]

Honestly speaking, it's just an appeal to authority. These are all the engineers that they could muster after almost 8 years.

You-all ballyhooed about there not being any structural engineers that support CD. Now that there is a growing number of structural engineers and other experts supporting CD, you hand wave it as "appeal to authority".

The "debunker" side has the entire backing of ASCE and SEA.

That is a lie.
A few people representing those organizations did not ask the membership and were speaking only for themselves.

In any event, appeals to authority don't really matter.

Then what does?

I'd like to see them actually write something substantial. They don't have the resources to put something together like what NIST did, but you'd think if they had all all the knowledge and resources they could write some white papers like Bazant.

Now you "move the goalpost" to "They haven't written papers like Bazant".

But right now, they're trying to use their qualifications to convince people.

Dude, that's exactly what you are doing.

That won't work against people who are scientifically trained, or structural engineers like myself.

You have provided no proof that you are what you say you are.

 

[twinstead]

You have provided no proof that you are what you say you are.

Dude. THINK about it. What if he is who he says he is? What if everybody on this board who claims expertise is telling the truth? What if all the experts from around the world who haven't spoken out, haven't done so because they find nothing substantially wrong with the ultimate conclusions of the NIST? What then?

What would you make of that?

 

[The Platypus]

Dude. THINK about it. What if he is who he says he is? What if everybody on this board who claims expertise is telling the truth? What if all the experts from around the world who haven't spoken out, haven't done so because they find nothing substantially wrong with the ultimate conclusions of the NIST? What then?

What would you make of that?

Then they are all paid off, threatened, brainwashed or in on it... that's what they usually say...

 

[Newtons Bit]

You have no rebuttal because there is no rebuttal.

So you try to change the subject to me.

You were quoting either the wrong report or just leaving out parts or changing words like you've already done. That's plain for everyone to see. Don't try to hide that fact. Be proud of it. It's part of your "truther" heritage.

Then you got debunked. Those aren't mutually exclusive statements and I explained why. Why you can't figure that out, I don't know. Did you just choose not to read part of my post? That might explain it.

Game over. This issue is settled. Do you have any other points you'd like to make up so we can knock them down?

 

[Christopher7]

When I was still taking my undergraduate studio courses we were often assigned the task of performing case studies in order to understand not only the urban context of designs, but the ideas behind them, the precedents they considered, and to a lesser extent -- construction. These fueled the ideas behind our own designs on the projects we did, even though studio projects themselves aren't actually built. Many of the engineers pioneered by the TM fail to do such studies properly, which is one of my major criticisms of them. It's also a demonstration of why the number of years practicing in the profession, while crucial are nothing nearly as important as being able to apply those years of experience. I'm not quite sure what C7 hopes to accomplish by ignoring this, but his adamant refusal to read any literature at all outside of the CT nuttery is one of his biggest short falls in seeing this issue clearly

First of all, you are an anonymous poster and until you are willing to state your real name and credentials your claims have no value in the real world.

You too have "moved the goalposts" to "They haven't written papers like Bazant"

The 29 structural engineers and other professionals have gone on record as supporting CD. They have the courage and integrity to give their names and credentials. These are qualities you do not possess.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You-all ballyhooed about there not being any structural engineers that support CD. Now that there is a growing number of structural engineers and other experts supporting CD, you hand wave it as "appeal to authority".

"You all"? Aren't you the one who is constantly complaining about strawman arguments? When did I ever say that the truth movement was incorrect merely because it didn't have any engineers on board? What a ridiculous statement.

That is a lie.
A few people representing those organizations did not ask the membership and were speaking only for themselves.

Engineers have an ethical responsibility to not be a part of an organization that misleads the public. This has been explained to you already. Stop bringing it up. It's long debunked. It's old. It's boring.

Now you "move the goalpost" to "They haven't written papers like Bazant".

Dude, that's exactly what you are doing.

The goalpost never was moved. Again with the strawmen. The only thing I care about is true arguments. Appeal to authorities has never been one of them. I see an appeal to authority in that paper where they "cite" evidence. I saw no math in their arguments, no reference to engineering theories that would explain why the buildings couldn't collapse.

You have provided no proof that you are what you say you are.

You have no proof that you are in fact, a human. I am going to assume that you are a martian pretending to be a human until you provide verifiable proof that you are human. That's a laughable statement. But just as laughable as yours.

If I wasn't an engineer, it would be obvious. Go through and look at the threads I've started and the math I've used to debunk Gordon Ross. Then go tell yourself that you can keep on denying I am who I say I am. You already live in a fantasy world, so that shouldn't be hard to do.

My work stands for itself. I don't use an appeal to authority to try and convince people.

By the way, Gordon Ross stalked me on the internet until he figured out my real name. Why don't you go ask him if I'm a real engineer.

 

[The Platypus]

First of all, you are an anonymous poster and until you are willing to state your real name and credentials your claims have no value in the real world.

You too have "moved the goalposts" to "They haven't written papers like Bazant"

The 29 structural engineers and other professionals have gone on record as supporting CD. They have the courage and integrity to give their names and credentials. These are qualities you do not possess.

Oh the irony...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

First of all, you are an anonymous poster and until you are willing to state your real name and credentials your claims have no value in the real world

Which is generally why I don't flaunt my bachelor's degree like it's my 6-inch cannon. My experience should be vastly more important to my credentials than a title.

They have the courage and integrity to give their names and credentials.

That's nice, but I don't care about either. I assess their qualifications based on their work. That tells me whether they're qualified or not.

 

[Christopher7]

You were quoting either the wrong report or just leaving out parts or changing words like you've already done.

Wrong! You are still trying to slither out from under your false accusation.

Post 740
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4857781#post4857781

Furthermore, Group 7 was supported in the north south direction by the columns in Groups 6 and 8. It could not fail before Group 8 as the result of "loss of lateral support in the north south direction" as NIST states on pg 612.
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
13. Horizontal Progression of Failure.
"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 [Group 7] lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."

Then you got debunked. Those aren't mutually exclusive statements and I explained why.

No, you did not! You made incorrect statements. I have rebutted those statements in post 1028:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4868869#post4868869

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wrong! You are still trying to slither out from under your false accusation.

Post 740
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4857781#post4857781

Furthermore, Group 7 was supported in the north south direction by the columns in Groups 6 and 8. It could not fail before Group 8 as the result of "loss of lateral support in the north south direction" as NIST states on pg 612.
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
13. Horizontal Progression of Failure.
"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 [Group 7] lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."

No, you did not! You made incorrect statements. I have rebutted those statements in post 1028:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4868869#post4868869

You had two quotes. Good job just posting one. This one, doesn't exist:

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."

Furthermore, I've already explained to you that the columns lost lateral support WHEN the exterior columns buckled. This happened AFTER the connections from the floor diaphragm around columns 59 and 62 were able to pull the west face IN. It couldn't be any more clear.