29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

1st. The east floor fails.
2nd. As the east floor moves downwards, it introduces tension forces into the floor system. The beam-beam and beam-column connections on the west side of the building are intact. These connections transfer this pull in force to the exterior columns because the exterior columns have the stiffness to resist this force.
3rd. The exterior columns fail. When the exterior columns fail, there is no stiff lateral system to brace the columns.
4th. The interior line of columns that you are referring to fail first in NIST's model. Though the timeline for this is minisicule.

Do you follow?

That's not the NIST scenario. They said the core columns collapsed before the exterior columns and that caused the exterior columns to buckle.

 

[tfk]

Griz, Tri & others,

Now I'd like to hear Newton's (& some of the other structural engineering guys') critique of my assessment.

My background is mechanical systems & product design. My specific experience has been designing small mechanisms and medical devices. Here I've been applying generic mechanical engineering principles. I don't want to mislead you guys.

The crucial lesson is to listen carefully to experts in their own field. While the principles are transferable, sometimes the dominant effects will surprise you.

Tom

 

[FineWine]

Finewine:


Correct. Why do these people do it? I don't get it.

It beats me. Here you have a guy who knows nothing about physics and engineering trying to argue with real engineers. They indulge him by taking him by the hand and walking him through a highly technical subject. He doesn't make the slightest effort to learn anything. He justs ignores everything and repeats the same nonsensical gibberish over and over.

Does he think he can make his absurd case to people who know vastly more than he does? This is NOT a rhetorical question. It baffles me. As you said, I just don't get it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's not the NIST scenario. They said the core columns collapsed before the exterior columns and that caused the exterior columns to buckle.

Hmm. I read through the collapse summary and assumed it was in chronological order. It wasn't.

NIST says that that interior line of columns failed due to damaged floor connections (p581). Do you still think this is contradictory?

 

[twinstead]

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

Like I said. Your world view pretty much depends on believing that, now doesn't it? I'm a skeptic; given enough real evidence, I could accept that 911 was an inside job. To you, having to accept it wasn't would be catastrophic.

 

[Myriad]

The whole structure is locked & loaded (literally) during its construction. But the damage to the building (physical & thermal) is unlocking that stored energy in several areas.

And all those stressed members are basically giant compressed springs. When they suddenly give way, there is an enormous amount of energy that is released. This released energy & motion is a second source (in addition to just falling debris) of a lot of damage.

It might be an enormous amount of energy by ordinary standards, but it's small compared with the overall gravitational potential energy of the structure.

Imagine you place a beam on top of the structure under construction, by lowering the beam onto some standing columns and releasing the crane just as the beam barely touches the columns (but before its weight actually bears on the columns). The weight of the beam compresses the columns beneath by a small amount. As a result of the compression, the beam comes to rest in a position slightly lower than where the crane released it. Half of the gpe lost from that small downward movement is converted into elastic strain energy in the structure beneath. (The other half is lost in damping of the vibrations that would result from "dropping" the beam in this odd way.)

If overall, each vertical member in the structure is compressed 1% by the weight of the load it bears (that's an enormously overestimated amount for any real structure), it means that the gpe remaining in the structure is 99% of what it would have been if no elastic compression took place. That makes the gpe 99/0.5 = 198 times the elastic strain energy. Realistically the gpe is probably well over 1000 times the elastic strain energy.

That, of course, is under normal static conditions. During a collapse (or other dynamic event such as an earthquake or high winds), larger amounts of energy could be transmitted as elastic strain energy from one part of the structure to another, vertically or laterally or both. That's essentially what shock waves and driven oscillations are.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

As one of the 29 of AE911truth.org I have also studied the WTC 7 destruction - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . Evidently a composite structure like WTC 7 with so many primary load bearing columns/elements does not collapse, if one column (no. 79!) fails for any reason. The load involved is simply transmitted to adjacent primary load bearing columns ... and nothing serious happens, e.g. a total collapse of the whole structure is impossible. It is called redundancy. Easy to prove with simple FEA of WTC 7. It is a pity that NIST will not publish the FEA input so an independent check can be done! You must do about 6000 FEA step by step to identify the alleged path of failures of total collapse of NIST. I doubt very much that NIST made those. Actually - after the first 2-3 failures further destruction should have been arrested. Redundancy!

NIST has of course admitted that the complete structure from side to side above visible floor 20 up to roof at level 47 suddenly free falls for 2.25 seconds. For that to happen you must suddenly remove all primary load bearing columns below between 8 floors, say floors 6-14. It is only possible with CD. The confirmed 2.25 sec free fall is clear evidence that CD took place. NIST amazingly do FEA of the free falling structure - when all internal forces are ZERO. NIST is simply a joke!

 

[Christopher7]

Hmm. I read through the collapse summary and assumed it was in chronological order. It wasn't.

NIST says that that interior line of columns failed due to damaged floor connections (p581). Do you still think this is contradictory?

There was no damage to the floor connections around columns 59 and 62 mentioned anywhere in the report. The only loss of support mentioned was to column 65 on the south side.

To be sure, I used the 'find' function and looked at every instance where the numbers 59 and 62 appear. There was no mention of damage to floors or column connections around 59 and 62 on any floor. [68 was in an elevator shaft]
This can be done in about 20-30 minutes. Try it or use any method you like, see for yourself. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Peace
Chris

 

[Christopher7]

NB

A more direct answer to your question:

Pg 581
"Figure 12–56 shows that west interior Columns 59, 62, 65, and 66, which had damaged floor connections after the debris impact by WTC 1 and by the fires,[FONT=&quot] did not buckle until 4.7 s after the kink was observed in the East Penthouse, or 6 s after Column 79 buckled. The west interior columns did not buckle until these columns were affected by the horizontal progression of failures due to loss of lateral support as floor connections failed, impact of falling debris, and the load redistribution from adjacent failing columns.[/FONT]" [column 68 [Group 7] was in an elevator shaft]

NIST intentionally misleads the reader by including column 66 [Group 8] with columns 59, 62 and 65 [Group 7] so they can infer damaged floor connections around columns 59, 62 and 65. There were "damaged floor connections after the debris impact by WTC 1" between the south wall and column 66, but there was no damage to the core girders in the south row, much less the middle row.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I read the paper in it's entirely between last night and today and for the hell of things I've written down all of the statements which either were factually wrong, misleading, or plainly incompetent. And I actually took some time to start addressing every single one of them. I still need to proof read what I wrote though and add some diagrams to better convey some points. But for those who haven't read the paper from the OP I can attest that the ENTIRE friggin thing is a word salad of this crap. As a summary, I ended up extracting about 58 (FIFTY-EIGHT) incidents of either factual error, deceptive statements, or outright incompetence in the paper.

Most of these errors are repeats of regurgitated crap (no surprises there).

So I suppose once I put together my own graphics I'll post it all. Most of this regurgitation doesn't really require "debunking" but I figured I'd do this anyway to discuss the actual content of the paper.

 

[jhunter1163]

There was no damage to the floor connections around columns 59 and 62 mentioned anywhere in the report. The only loss of support mentioned was to column 65 on the south side.

To be sure, I used the 'find' function and looked at every instance where the numbers 59 and 62 appear. There was no mention of damage to floors or column connections around 59 and 62 on any floor. [68 was in an elevator shaft]
This can be done in about 20-30 minutes. Try it or use any method you like, see for yourself. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Peace
Chris

*cough*post1027*cough*

 

[Christopher7]

*cough*post1027*cough*

In post 1029, triforcharity gave "NCSTAR VOL 1-9a. Page 133 of the PDF" as his reference for the damage.
That page has nothing to do with damage. It starts off with: "To organize the images in this database . . . "
The damage he showed in his graphic [red dots] did not exist except for the failed girder between columns 66 and 65.

 

[alexi_drago]

In post 1029, triforcharity gave "NCSTAR VOL 1-9a. Page 133 of the PDF" as his reference for the damage.
That page has nothing to do with damage. It starts off with: "To organize the images in this database . . . "
The damage he showed in his graphic [red dots] did not exist except for the failed girder between columns 66 and 65.

quick google of 'NCSTAR VOL 1-9a'
wait for 25Mb download
look at page 133
Yep, it's there.

 

[jhunter1163]

What do you mean, the damage didn't exist? How do you know this, other than that it conflicts with your thesis?

 

[triforcharity]

No, that page doesn't start off with "To organize..." It starts off with something else. (I am not at home, so i don't have it handy) But, if you actually LOOKED at the CORRECT report, the one I even gave a LINK to, you would see what I am talking about. It talks about the damage to the core column connections.

You think that they just like putting little red dots on pictures for S-N-G????

Come on Chris, nobody can be THAT dunce.

 

[alexi_drago]

No, that page doesn't start off with "To organize..." It starts off with something else. (I am not at home, so i don't have it handy) But, if you actually LOOKED at the CORRECT report, the one I even gave a LINK to, you would see what I am talking about. It talks about the damage to the core column connections.

You think that they just like putting little red dots on pictures for S-N-G????

Come on Chris, nobody can be THAT dunce.

Page starts with:

Damage to the western core developed early in the initialization process as a result of the WTC 1 debris impact damage.

 

[Myriad]

As one of the 29 of AE911truth.org I have also studied the WTC 7 destruction - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . Evidently a composite structure like WTC 7 with so many primary load bearing columns/elements does not collapse, if one column (no. 79!) fails for any reason. The load involved is simply transmitted to adjacent primary load bearing columns ... and nothing serious happens, e.g. a total collapse of the whole structure is impossible. It is called redundancy. Easy to prove with simple FEA of WTC 7.

You should write up the simple FEA of WTC7 that you performed to prove this, and have it published. Or at least publish it on your own site so we can have a look.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Norseman]

In post 1029, triforcharity gave "NCSTAR VOL 1-9a. Page 133 of the PDF" as his reference for the damage.
That page has nothing to do with damage. It starts off with: "To organize the images in this database . . . "
The damage he showed in his graphic [red dots] did not exist except for the failed girder between columns 66 and 65.

The reference is entirely correct, I gave you that reference back in post #1011 and triforcharity repeated it in post #1030 after having posted a screenshot from that page in post #1027. In post #1036 triforcharity pointed out to you C7 that you were looking at the wrong report and provided a direct link to the report.

There is an "A" in the reference that you are overlooking C7, because you have been looking at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 while you should look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9A.

A link to the report can be found here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

And here is a direct link to NIST NCSTAR 1-9A itself to make sure that you read the correct report this time C7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9A.pdf

 

[triforcharity]

Thank you. I am not at home, so I do not have those reports and links handy. Nothing like spending the Fourth with family.

Anyway, yes, he is looking at the compleately wrong report. If he lookat that the correct report, it explains it quite nicely.

 

[Heiwa]

You should write up the simple FEA of WTC7 that you performed to prove this, and have it published. Or at least publish it on your own site so we can have a look.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I thought I just did that with my 3-D beam model in the link I gave, which is my site/paper.

The horizontal beams represents the floors and are uniformly loaded. The loads are transmitted to the vertical columns that transmit the loads to ground.

Remove a bit of one column (no. 79 of WTC 7) between three floors (yellow section) and the loads in the damaged column above the break are just transmitted to adjacent columns via intact beams and down to ground. I add some calculations in my paper.

No collapse will occur, I assure you. No reason to complicate matters further with FEA. I wonder why NIST didn't start their analysis (sic) with a simple beam model?