29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Christopher7]

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

My apologies to triforcharity. I thought he was talking about 1-9. I did not know there was a 1-9A

That graphic is in conflict with the following:

9-1 Vol.2 pg 586 [pdf 248]
"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 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."

There were no fires in that region on floors 10-14. Therefore there was no increase in damage form fire as NIST claims.


The graphic has damage to girders on the north side of Group 8 but not the south. This is impossible.

The graphic for Floor 13 shows minimal interior damage.

Floors 8 and 9 have more debris damage but no damage to the same girders. That is ridiculous.

 

[triforcharity]

I thought I just did that with my 3-D beam model in the link I gave, which is my site/paper.
[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC7.JPG[/qimg]

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?

They did use this type scenario. The took out a section of the #79 column, and it still failed. Plus, this is not a smiple beam building. My porch is a simple beam type, WTC=NOT!!

ETA- Did you use saltines and water mixed with baking soda for glue to build this thing???

 

[triforcharity]

So Chris,

I am not quite understand your argument here. The image I posted with the dots indicates it was from floor 13. It does not say that it was due to fires, it says that it was due to the collapse of WTC 1.

Whats your argument??

 

[Oscar]

Heiwa:

No collapse will occur, I assure you.

I'm sure that'll come as a great relief to the relatives of the 3000 people who died that day. Yes, you're a one man source of comfort.

How do you bear to look at yourself in the mirror when you brush your teeth in the morning? It boggles belief.

 

[Norseman]

My apologies to triforcharity. I thought he was talking about 1-9. I did not know there was a 1-9A

That graphic is in conflict with the following:

9-1 Vol.2 pg 586 [pdf 248]
"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 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."

There were no fires in that region on floors 10-14. Therefore there was no increase in damage form fire as NIST claims.


The graphic has damage to girders on the north side of Group 8 but not the south. This is impossible.

The graphic for Floor 13 shows minimal interior damage.

[qimg]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/41/floor13debrisdamage.jpg[/qimg]

Floors 8 and 9 have more debris damage but no damage to the same girders. That is ridiculous.

[qimg]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8159/floor8debrisdamage.jpg[/qimg]

No there is no conflict C7. The broken connections in Figure 4-20 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, developed in the global model as a response to the debris impact damage indicated in the figures you posted above. If you had read the text on pdf page 133 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9A where the figure appeared that should be quiet obvious. You should take a closer look at the complete NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, instead of posting unsupported claims about the NIST WTC 7 reports.

 

[alienentity]

No collapse will occur, I assure you....

Just as you assured that you had 1 million dollars? (bogus)

Just as you assured that your 'famous' paper had been 'peer reviewed' by Dr. Sunder?

Sorry, but your assurances are not very reassuring.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Please do not respond to Heiwa in this thread. He has ruined enough threads already.

 

[triforcharity]

I would rather talk to some frozen yogurt than that idiot.

 

[Heiwa]

They did use this type scenario. The took out a section of the #79 column, and it still failed. Plus, this is not a smiple beam building. My porch is a simple beam type, WTC=NOT!!

They did? Take out a piece of #79 column between floors #12/#14? Very good! What element failed then? A floor beam attached to column #79 above? Which one? There are 130+ beams attached there easily transmitting loads to adjacent columns. And then?

Please provide a link to the NIST path of failures after #79 column failed between floors #12/#14. I have asked NIST for it and they cannot provide it.

 

[Heiwa]

Please do not respond to Heiwa in this thread. He has ruined enough threads already.

NB - I am one of the 29 quoted as Topic. Better respond to me as well as you can or admit defeat.

 

[triforcharity]

Heiwa,

Please direct your attention to NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2

Page 540 (PDF 202) and following. Read this chapter sir. It explains it.

I won't do your homework for you, considering you're the "EXPERT".

Somehow I don't believe you are qualified to build a doghouse, let alone anything else.

 

[Darat]

To all participants:

Read your Membership Agreements - especially Rules 11 & Rule 12! Continuing to breach your Membership Agreement will result in further moderation action which may include suspension or even banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Christopher7]

So Chris,

I am not quite understand your argument here. The image I posted with the dots indicates it was from floor 13. It does not say that it was due to fires, it says that it was due to the collapse of WTC 1.

Whats your argument??​

First, the core girder between column 62 and 63 is larger and stronger* than the floor beam on the south side of column 63. The force from the debris damage impact was mostly down. The primary force on column 63 was the floor beam to column connection bending downward. The combined strength of the column and the stronger support on the north side is much greater than the floor beam to column connection on the south side.

There could not be more damage to the girder to column connection on the north side of column 63 than beam to column connection on the south side.

*Core girders ranged in size from W16x31 to W36x135
On the south side, the typical floor beam was a W16x26
1-9 Vol.1 pg 14 [pdf 58]
[W16x31 = 16 inches high and weighs 31 pounds per lineal ft.- NIST L pg 5]

​

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]This damage to the south wall could not cause all that girder to core damage without causing greater damage to the floor beam connections on the south side of the core.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Please direct your attention to NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2

Page 540 (PDF 202) and following. Read this chapter sir. It explains it.

I won't do your homework for you, considering you're the "EXPERT".

Somehow I don't believe you are qualified to build a doghouse, let alone anything else.

Suggest you got to the NIST web page with Comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report and read my comments there. They explain the errors and omissions of NIST.

 

[tfk]

Hmmm interesting.

This is why it's good to do numbers.

Another way of looking at it..

The energy stored in a unit volume of, say, steel, is given by:

Kc = 0.5 stress*strain = stress²/2 E.

If we figure that you ran the stress up to about, say, 15 ksi, and using Young's modulus of 28 e6 psi, then the energy per unit volume is about 7 psi. Amazingly low. I'm actually shocked at that number. One cubic inch, then gives you about 7 lb-in of stored energy.

Comparing that to gravitational energy, K = mgh

Using steel's density of 0.3 lb/in³ means that this is equivalent to raising the 1" cube by h = 7 lb-in/0.3 lbs = 13 inches.

Working this out for 3 stress levels, I get the these results.

Stress | Stress | Stored | Equivalent
Condition | Level | Energy | Height
| (psi) | (ft - lb) | (ft)
| | |
Working | 15,000 | 4.018 | 1.1
Yield | 40000 | 28.571 | 7.9
Ultimate | 65000 | 75.446 | 21.0

So, as you said, Myriad, no matter how you cut it, this is inconsequential compared to everything above the first floor...

Thanks for the note.

I love learnin' this stuff.

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

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

When you drop something, say C, during construction of, say A, ensure that C doesn't get damaged in the process. So, take it easy! Just position C on A slowly and everything is OK.

If, after construction is completed, and C suddenly is FREE and drops on A, please check again what is damaged first! C or A?

 

[peteweaver]

I find it amusing that they have "take an architect or engineer to lunch" as a link on their site.

It implies they are so blitheringly incompetent they can't even cook their own meals.

 

[Bluesky]

When you drop something, say C, during construction of, say A, ensure that C doesn't get damaged in the process. So, take it easy! Just position C on A slowly and everything is OK.

If, after construction is completed, and C suddenly is FREE and drops on A, please check again what is damaged first! C or A?

Heiwa is one of the ae911truth experts. I guess he has had his whacky theory checked out by the other experts such as the road engineer, the graduate from 2007, or the guy who didn't quite get his masters.

Anyone wanting to fall for this stupid Heiwa Challenge...should restart the conversation a few thousand postings ago.

Lots of people have done it...its easy.!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

 

[Toke]

This is odd.
In my world marine engineers can overhaul main engines, auxilirary engines, boilers, and all the auxilary machinery on the ship.
They do not engage in high rise construction or even much electrical faultfinding.

 

[Christopher7]

First, the core girder between column 62 and 63 is larger and stronger* than the floor beam on the south side of column 63. The force from the debris damage impact was mostly down. The primary force on column 63 was the floor beam to column connection bending downward. The combined strength of the column and the stronger support on the north side is much greater than the floor beam to column connection on the south side.

There could not be more damage to the girder to column connection on the north side of column 63 than beam to column connection on the south side.

*Core girders ranged in size from W16x31 to W36x135
On the south side, the typical floor beam was a W16x26
1-9 Vol.1 pg 14 [pdf 58]
[W16x31 = 16 inches high and weighs 31 pounds per lineal ft.- NIST L pg 5]

​

[FONT=&quot] http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6161/floor13girderdamages.jpg

[/FONT]This damage to the south wall could not cause all that girder to core damage without causing greater damage to the floor beam connections on the south side of the core.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/41/floor13debrisdamage.jpg

The silence speaks loudly. When there is no rebuttal, you-all refuse to respond and acknowledge the obvious reality.

The claim by NIST that the north-south girder to column connections on columns in Group 7 were damaged without damage to the beam to column/girder connections that had to transmit the lateral fores is absurd.

The claim that this happened on the 13th floor and not the 8th and 9th floors where the damage was much greater is also absurd.