29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[tfk]

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.

<snip>

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.

.
Tri,

Nice find.

See what you can find when you actually read the report. I'd not seen this either.

tom

 

[Christopher7]

"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.

The "No structural engineers support CD" mantra was ubiquitous a couple years ago.

Engineers have an ethical responsibility to not be a part of an organization that misleads the public. This has been explained to you already.

That does not mean that they are aware of the problem or willing to risk their job. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how many have protested so stop making that argument.

The goalpost never was moved.

Yes they were. Some here are inferring "Only structural engineers with tall building experience are qualified to understand the collapses."
You said: "I'd like to see them actually write something substantial. . . . they could write some white papers like Bazant."

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 hand wave evidence because "It doesn't contain math or reference to engineering theories" That's moving the goalposts.

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.

If I wasn't an engineer, it would be obvious.

It is 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.

Ah yes, the go to Hellen Hunt for it drivel.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Your claim of experience is no more valid than your claim of being a structural engineer.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't claim to be qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[twinstead]

You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't claim to be qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about.

So what is your response to anyone who IS qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about? Unless you think your little group of engineers is the cream of the crop and above critique, of course?

 

[tfk]

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.

.
AE,

"... the wisdom to know the difference between what you can & cannot change..."

There are some truthers that really are worth an effort to reach. And some that are not. If we want to keep our sanity and frustration below postal levels, we all need to sort them as fast as possible.

The key, obviously, is "where is their allegiance?" To the truth. Or to their personal fantasies.

The salvageable ones are the honest but credulous kids that have been sucked in by shysters. And, as the oldsters in society, it is our solemn duty to take on the incredibly frustrating (and ultimately rewarding) task to guide, cajole, herd, cattle prod or drag kicking-and-screaming these little monsters thru the crazy years. It's "our turn in the barrel". And we owe it as a debt to our parents. Whom we all sent to early graves with our own stooopid.

But you have to be able to identify: which are salvageable and which are a waste of time.

If a kid is immersed in a full blown case of Young&Stupid, there probably ain't nothing that you can do for him/her. Except wait it out. Most cases are like acne. They clear up on their own. Usually with the prophylactic introduction to their own babies. And even the most obnoxious, self-absorbed little snot may very well turn into a functioning adult. Nobody knows how this happens. It's magic.

But when you run into this determined stupid in adults (Chris has grown kid(s), and bill is in his mid 20s), the patterns are pretty much set. There ain't anything that anyone can do at this point. Tragically, they're lost souls.

You can't fix 'em. Society's got bunches of them. Fortunately, they aren't your responsibility, and your emotional investment should be saved for the those that are salvageable.

For the irredeemably, determinedly stupid, the ONLY effective treatment that I've ever seen is "pointing fingers and laughing loudly".

Or in HL Mencken's words, "One good horse laugh is worth a 1000 syllogisms."

Tom

 

[tfk]

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.

.
Tri,

It is perhaps unknowable if Chris can or cannot understand. Because you'll never get thru the castle walls of stupid that he has guarding his reason.

There are lots of reasons that he WILL not understand.

Trust me. "Reading the wrong report" AIN'T one of them.



Tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

The "No structural engineers support CD" mantra was ubiquitous a couple years ago.

That does not mean that they are aware of the problem or willing to risk their job. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how many have protested so stop making that argument.

Yes they were. Some here are inferring "Only structural engineers with tall building experience are qualified to understand the collapses."
You said: "I'd like to see them actually write something substantial. . . . they could write some white papers like Bazant."

You hand wave evidence because "It doesn't contain math or reference to engineering theories" That's moving the goalposts.

That's a laughable statement.

It is obvious.

Ah yes, the go to Hellen Hunt for it drivel.

How pathetic...

 

[Christopher7]

How pathetic...

Truly. If you have written a paper, post the URL. Don't ask me to go to Hellen Hunt for it.

 

[Bluesky]

Your claim of experience is no more valid than your claim of being a structural engineer.

You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't claim to be qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about.

By your definittion he must be an expert structural engineer and I hope you will show him the appropriate respect. Since you support the ae911truth's ridiculous 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

It hard to imagine any "engineer" with less expertiese. Indeed the statute in most states is that you cannot claim to be an "engineer" until you are licensed. So the 2007 grad is probably fraudulent to call himself an engineer, let alone an "expert".

 

[Myriad]

The "No structural engineers support CD" mantra was ubiquitous a couple years ago.

And it's still true.

Perhaps it was not clear that "no structural engineers support CD" means "no structural engineers support CD using the intellectual tools of structural engineering." This should have been clear from the context, which is that the question concerns a matter of structural engineering, which is why skeptics weren't saying things like "no bakers support CD" or "no dentists support CD."

If a lawyer says she supports someone's case, but will not or cannot argue that case in court where it matters, using evidence and a lawyer's expertise, against the opposing claims of other lawyers, then of what value is her "support?" No more than that of any person on the street. A lawyer saying "I've looked at all the evidence and I'm certain, as an experienced lawyer, that my client is owed damages" is not very convincing, unless and until the lawyer presents the evidence and reasoning involved, standing up against hostile examination, which is what they must do in court.

Similarly here. I don't care about structural engineers' personal opinions on either side. What interests me is the arguments they make from the evidence and their expertise as structural engineers, using the tools and language of structural engineering. "I've looked at all the evidence and I'm certain, as an experienced structural engineer, that NIST's hypothesis for a building collapse is wrong" is not very convincing. Not if they don't present the evidence and reasoning, in a way that convinces other structural engineers and others with an understanding of the math and science involved. If the NIST reports consisted only of stated conclusions and a list of names supporting it, like the "29 Engineers" article, no one here would be bothering to refer to it. Or if they presented an argument but their evidence, reasoning, or math proved erroneous or nonsensical under scruitiny, like Bjorkmann's whitepapers self-described as "written for children," the skeptics here would be the first in line to reject it.

What makes NIST's conclusions valuable is that they showed their work, and that their work as a whole holds up under examination.

When 29 engineers (or even one) do the same, by presenting and defending an engineering case for a CD hypothesis, then you can claim that they "support" CD.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Newtons Bit]

Truly. If you have written a paper, post the URL. Don't ask me to go to Hellen Hunt for it.

It's really difficult to click on a person's name and see what threads they've started. You're a real dedicated researcher.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107267

Try those two.

 

[beachnut]

The "No structural engineers support CD" mantra was ubiquitous a couple years ago.

...

There are zero structural engineers who built high rise buildings taller than 40 stories who support your moronic brain dead dribble on 911. Fact is you have paranoid people who made up idiotic statements about 9211 and you use those failed moronic ideas as your evidence to spew nonsense on 911. Total failure is 911 movement of CD delusions.

You support people with idiotic ideas and you have zero capabilities to save their failed ideas and you are still 7 years plus short of having a masters degree in engineering. You wasted 7 years spewing garbage on 911 when you could have gained an education.

The 29 plus people from the OP have failed ideas on 911 and you can't fix it. 29 failures on 911 issues. When you mention Heiwa's the pizza box two mile drop special education engineering efforts, you said it all.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For the record my major isn't structural engineering, it's architecture. C7 got that one wrong. As far as C7's contention that I don't have any business "claiming" that they don't know what they're talking about -- denied. I've explained one of my major criticisms of AE911's practices on this very page. C7 made the decision to disregard it, and beyond the point of stating what my experience tells me from an educational standpoint about their practices, how C7 interprets it is not my problem.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There are zero structural engineers who built high rise buildings taller than 40 stories who support your moronic brain dead dribble on 911. Fact is you have paranoid people who made up idiotic statements about 9211 and you use those failed moronic ideas as your evidence to spew nonsense on 911. Total failure is 911 movement of CD delusions.

You support people with idiotic ideas and you have zero capabilities to save their failed ideas and you are still 7 years plus short of having a masters degree in engineering. You wasted 7 years spewing garbage on 911 when you could have gained an education.

The 29 plus people from the OP have failed ideas on 911 and you can't fix it. 29 failures on 911 issues. When you mention Heiwa's the pizza box two mile drop special education engineering efforts, you said it all.

Honestly speaking, a structural engineer is a structural engineer. If they've done a building more then 3 stories tall, then they have all the requisite experience.

But even then, they shouldn't be using an argument, "well, I'm an engineer, therefor it's <whatever>". The largest groups of engineers got together and did a massive investigation to find out what actually happened. That's what the truth movement should be doing. But unfortunately, all they have is psuedo-science and rhetoric.

 

[tfk]

Guys,

I'd recommend just giving up on Chris' nonsense. Even tho I've been one of the offenders. There are simply no words that any of us can write that will make any difference. And that defines a self-imposed upper bound to C7's understanding that is knee high to an ant.

But that does not mean that there are not intereting things to talk about regarding buildings & structures that can be learned from the NIST report. (It just means that we cannot let C7 hijack an interesting conversation.)

Here's an example that just occurred to me as I read this report. Self evident in retrospect.

An interesting & informative question about the collapse progression in WTC7.

The building was moderately damaged in the south west corner and south wall towards west side. Nonetheless, it stood for about 7 hours without collapse. See NCSTAR1-9a, Fig 3-60 (pdf pg 111) & 4-10 & 4-11 (pdf pg. 123).

Thermal damage initiated a catastrophic failure starting in the north east quadrant. Global collapse started from that location and progressed horizontally (east to west) thru the building. (ibid, Fig 4-22 to 4-25, pdf pg. 134)

During the 3 seconds or so that it took the collapse wave to move horizontally thru the building from the east side to the west, a second and (by the above description) independent collapse began in the west core.

Now HERE IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION.

By a show of hands, please ...

How many people think that it is a giant coincidence that those two collapses happened within seconds of each other. That, being on separate sides of the building, they were not related.

I hope that the show of hands in in the single digits.

How many think that it was because the demolition charges in the west core had a 3 second delay timers compared to the demo charges on the east side? You students are dismissed.

The collapse on the east side of the building CAUSED a collapse on the west side, BEFORE the collapse itself got there. Even tho there were "uncollapsed" sections of the building in between.

How?

An exercise for the students... Pop quiz on Monday.

CONCLUSION: The buildings are large units. When the failures begin, the stresses that they generate are not only local. They can appear far away, due to load shifting, leaning, etc., precisely because the building is tied into a giant unit.

I hope everyone has a great 4th of July. Stay safe.

Tom

 

[Woody-]

I still dont even know what C7's point is. The way I see it either explosives or collapse due to fire and damage could cause the observed accelerations. In either case its still kinetic energy due to gravity that does all the damage. So the real question should be is their more evidence for explosives or more evidence for damage from fire? Once you look at it that way the NIST's damage from fire wins hands down.

 

[Christopher7]

Guys,

I'd recommend just giving up on Chris' nonsense.

At JREF, quotes from the NIST report, establishing facts of what happened, are considered nonsense.

During the 3 seconds or so that it took the collapse wave to move horizontally thru the building from the east side to the west,

That is nonsense.

a second and (by the above description) independent collapse began in the west core.

That did not happen.

 

[twinstead]

Give it up Chris. You are betting the store on the desperate hope that nobody here is a 'real' expert, and the experts of the world are keeping their mouths shut because they deep down think the NIST is crap.

Neither is true.

 

[tfk]

Well Chris,

This is a legacy note that I wrote to you. I was gonna toss it, because I'm not going to bother debating you anymore. I've been struggling to find some redeeming feature in your character here that'd justify it. Can't find one. Especially the insulting 'tude.

So, here's some more bad news for ya regarding fall times. Trust me, I KNOW that you won't get it...

Since it appears that numbers & math discussion means nothing to you, I thought that I'd draw you a picture.

I've calculated the acceleration of the roofline of WTC7 using NIST's data (same as Chandler's) and the mathematical technique that Chandler used on the raw data - the "center difference approximation" (aka, "CDA") that I said introduced noise into the conclusions. The purpose of this is to show you HOW MUCH noise this technique puts into the analysis.

Chandler took the perfectly good position data, and performed a CDA to get velocities. He assumed that these velocities were appropriate for the midpoint in time between his position data points.

I have done exactly the same thing, only one more time. (Hey, if the technique is good once, it must be good twice, right??) I took the velocity data and applied a CDA to calculate acceleration, and assumed that acceleration would be true for the midpoint in time between the velocity data points.

Here are the results.

There are 4 plots of acceleration vs. time on this graph.

1. An object that is REALLY in free fall (red line)
2. My calculation of acceleration vs. time from a double differentiation of the position vs. time data. (blue line)
3. Chandler's reported "constant approximately G" value (heavy green straight line between 1.75 & 4.0 seconds.)
4. The Instantaneous accelerations, based on "Central Difference Approximation" applied to the calculated velocities. (light green wavy line.)

The heavy green line IS, in fact, the "linear average" of that ridiculously wavy light green line. Pretty gacky data, eh Chris?

Chris, this is the REAL results of plotting Chandler's conclusions, using Chandler's method. I simply used Chandler's method one more time than Chandler did.

So, while you're moaning & groaning that MY analysis cannot be right because it produces short term accelerations up to 108% of free fall, I will point out to you that Chandler's calculation show short term accelerations of 133% of free fall acceleration. And then 94% G, 163% G, 42% G, 132% G, 73% G, 130% G, 32% G & 111% G.

Which Chandler then took and "linearized" to 101% G.

And verbalized to "essentially free fall".

I don't suppose that ANY of this is sinking in...

Tom.

PS. BTW, Chris, this is a quote taken directly from Chandler's website: It refers to his previous calculation of the acceleration of the fall of the WTC towers.

From: http://www.911speakout.org/
Faster than Gravity (Removed)
"I removed this video because when I did additional runs at different resolutions, I always got extreme accelerations, but not the same amounts in the same places. This made me skeptical of the procedure. Finding accelerations from position data involves double numerical differentiation, a process that can amplify "noise" in the data. The raw data in this analysis is the inherently noisy positional measurement of cloudy material, and the conclusions were based on the short term variations in the acceleration. This raises the likelihood that the extreme accelerations are artifacts. The WTC7 measurements (above) do not suffer the same defect because (1) they are measuring the motion of a more definite point of solid material, and (2) the conclusions are based on long term average acceleration."

Any of that sound familiar, Chris. Can you read into Chandler's (admirably honest) statement here that there are potential sources of error (aka "artifacts") that are purely the result of mathematical technique. Have you learned that all experimental technique is not created equal?

Naahhhh. What was I thinking...??

 

[Christopher7]

Give it up Chris. You are betting the store on the desperate hope that nobody here is a 'real' expert, and the experts of the world are keeping their mouths shut because they deep down think the NIST is crap.

Neither is true.

Most of the world's experts are not interested but that is changing, inexorably.