29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Norseman]

Wrong!
You can't refute the facts I listed so now you say it's not important. The convenient timing of the collapse of Group 7 was essential or NIST would not have lied about it.

Without this early collapse of Group 7, the collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse would have taken 8 to 10 seconds to progress from east to west.

NIST stated that the failure of the screenwall and west penthouse were simultaneous.
NIST Appendix L pg 33 [pdf 37] - see also: Timeline chart on pg 27

"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures"

NIST also admitted that even with the early collapse of Group 7 their scenario did not match the observed event.


NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that

the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse."

When the result of a scenario does not match the observed collapse, that scenario must be scrapped and a new scenario must be formulated.


You have not been paying attention. Group 7 supposedly collapsed BEFORE the horizontal collapse got to it.

Having no rebuttal, you will hand wave the facts and/or violate Rule 12.

You are posting nonsense C7. Now you are going back to the interim NIST report on WTC 7 from june 2004 in a silly desperate attempt to find what you believe is an inconsistency, that you can use to dismiss the final NIST WTC 7 report. As usual you come up empty handed. Yes NIST wrote that the screenwall and the west penthouse fell simultaneously one place in the interim report. But you missed the two other places where NIST used the qualifier "almost" in front of "simultaneous":

• Page L-34 (PDF 38):
  Since the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously, it is reasonable to assume that the horizontal progression captured all the columns that support these building parts.
• Page L-46 (PDF 50)
  After the east penthouse was observed to sink into the building core, approximately five seconds lapsed before the screenwall and west penthouse were observed to also sink into the building core. The screenwall and west penthouse movements occurred almost simultaneously with the global collapse of the structure.

I assume that I do not need to explain the meaning of the word "almost" to you C7.

In the final report NIST spells out in great detail in what order the different parts of the WTC 7 building were observed to collapse. See for instance summary in table 5-3 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 on PDF page 334.

So where did NIST lie C7? The only one lying here is you C7 with your frequent totally unsupported claims about NIST lying or hiding information.

And regarding the damage around column Group 7, NIST explains in NIST NCSTAR 1-9A that this damage developed as a consequence of a redistribution of gravitational loads, causing displacement in the building structure after the estimated impact damage had been applied to the computer model. This I have pointed out you two times already. After comparing the collapse simulations with and without debris impact damage to the real world event, NIST concludes the following in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 page 606 (PDF 268):

• The horizontal progression of failure was sensitive to the extent of the estimated initial structural damage in WTC 7 due to the collapse of WTC 1.

• For the debris impact damage 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 directly behind the initially severed exterior columns before the two north-south lines of columns immediately to their eas. 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. The results of this scenario were consistent with observations except that the screening wall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.

• For the no debris impact scenario, the horizontal progression of column failures occurred in order from east to west after collapse initiation (i.e. buckling of Column 79) and the vertical progression failures on the east side. This scenario matched the observations where the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse. This suggests that the damage scenario that was imposed in the best estimate analysis was slightly more severe than actually occurred.

The above I have also pointed out to you twice already C7, but you are of course conveniently ignoring this to keep your fantasy alive I assume. NIST is not hiding or lying about anything.

ETA
Here is a video of the collapse of WTC 7 showing what fairly can be described as the simultaneous collapse of the screenwall and the west penthouse, but NIST is of course much more precise than that in their description in the final WTC 7 report:

 

[Christopher7]

Now you are going back to the interim NIST report on WTC 7 from june 2004 Yes NIST wrote that the screenwall and the west penthouse fell simultaneously one place in the interim report. But you missed the two other places where NIST used the qualifier "almost" in front of "simultaneous":

I will use the 'almost' quote from now on. I have mentioned that one can see in the videos, it actually took about a second to go from east to west.

The point is still the same. NIST admits that the result of their scenario differs from the actual collapse. Science requires that they be the same.
Don't give me that "exact" stuff, this is not even close.

"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse."
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]

In the final report NIST spells out in great detail in what order the different parts of the WTC 7 building were observed to collapse. See for instance summary in table 5-3 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 on PDF page 334.

That page discusses the start time, not the collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse.

So where did NIST lie C7?

They lied about the damaged connections around the columns in Group 7 on floor 13.

And regarding the damage around column Group 7, NIST explains in NIST NCSTAR 1-9A that this damage developed as a consequence of a redistribution of gravitational loads, causing displacement in the building structure after the estimated impact damage had been applied to the computer model.

Right
And you will believe anything they say no matter how absurd.

It would be impossible for floor 13 to be damaged more than floors 8 and 9.

Furthermore, the damage and load redistribution had occurred 7 hours earlier. There were no fires on floors 10-14 in that end of the building. There was no reason for those columns to fail at that time.

This I have pointed out you two times already. After comparing the collapse simulations with and without debris impact damage to the real world event, NIST concludes the following in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 page 606 (PDF 268):

Doing any analysis at all on an event that did not happen is absurd from the get.

 

[funk de fino]

Absolutely clueless!!

 

[tsig]

I will use the 'almost' quote from now on. I have mentioned that one can see in the videos, it actually took about a second to go from east to west.

The point is still the same. NIST admits that the result of their scenario differs from the actual collapse. Science requires that they be the same.
Don't give me that "exact" stuff, this is not even close.

"The results of this scenario were consistent with the observations except that the screenwall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse."
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]

That page discusses the start time, not the collapse of the screenwall and west penthouse.

They lied about the damaged connections around the columns in Group 7 on floor 13.

Right
And you will believe anything they say no matter how absurd.

It would be impossible for floor 13 to be damaged more than floors 8 and 9.

Furthermore, the damage and load redistribution had occurred 7 hours earlier. There were no fires on floors 10-14 in that end of the building. There was no reason for those columns to fail at that time.

Doing any analysis at all on an event that did not happen is absurd from the get.

Using a source to argue against itself seems contradictory. How can you determine which part to accept and which to ignore?

 

[Christopher7]

Using a source to argue against itself seems contradictory. How can you determine which part to accept and which to ignore?

The data of where the debris damage was is reasonably accurate. The data of where the fires were and when is reasonably accurate. The videos of the collapse clearly show that the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously.

It's the analysis that is fraudulent.


You did not address these key points.

The damage was much greater on floors 8 and 9. The claim that the girder-to-column connections in Group 7 were damaged on the 13th floor but not the 8th and 9th floors is absurd.

The damage occurred 7 hours earlier and there were no fires in the area of Group 7 on floors 10-14. There was no reason for them to collapse at that time.

 

[FineWine]

The data of where the debris damage was is reasonably accurate. The data of where the fires were and when is reasonably accurate. The videos of the collapse clearly show that the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously.

It's the analysis that is fraudulent.


You did not address these key points.

The damage was much greater on floors 8 and 9. The claim that the girder-to-column connections in Group 7 were damaged on the 13th floor but not the 8th and 9th floors is absurd.

The damage occurred 7 hours earlier and there were no fires in the area of Group 7 on floors 10-14. There was no reason for them to collapse at that time.

Why do you persist with this ridiculous charade? You are wrong. Stop. You are wrong.

The bizarre political agenda you are flogging will not permit you to acknowledge error or to learn anything from people who know far more than you do. That's your problem--keep it to yourself. Your buffoonish attempts to argue with real engineers have ceased to amuse; you can't possibly hope to persuade anybody.
The nonsensical beliefs you are wedded to will never be right. Accept reality and regain control of your life.

 

[Christopher7]

Why do you persist with this ridiculous charade?

Why do you persist in your denial of the facts?

The bizarre political agenda you are flogging will not permit you to acknowledge error or to learn anything from people who know far more than you do.That's your problem--keep it to yourself. Your buffoonish attempts to argue with real engineers have ceased to amuse; you can't possibly hope to persuade anybody.

Please

The claims of expertise by anonymous posters are accompanied with abject denial of inconvenient facts.

You cannot dispute the fact that there could not be damage to girder-to-column connections on floor 13 without more damage to that same area on floors 8 and 9 so you revert to the standard cop-out line of claimed expertise.

 

[alienentity]

Why do you persist in your denial of the facts?

Please

The claims of expertise by anonymous posters are accompanied with abject denial of inconvenient facts.

You cannot dispute the fact that there could not be damage to girder-to-column connections on floor 13 without more damage to that same area on floors 8 and 9 so you revert to the standard cop-out line of claimed expertise.

Suggestion: why don't you start a fresh thread to discuss this particular point.

I haven't got the energy or time to go back thru all the posts looking for what's relevant to this, but I'd be interested to look at a focused description of what your beefs are with NIST's analysis, and what you think is a better analysis.

So far, besides accusing NIST of fraud in a recent post, I fail to see what your own opinion is. What do you think happened, and when?

thanks in advance

 

[FineWine]

Why do you persist in your denial of the facts?

Please

The claims of expertise by anonymous posters are accompanied with abject denial of inconvenient facts.

You cannot dispute the fact that there could not be damage to girder-to-column connections on floor 13 without more damage to that same area on floors 8 and 9 so you revert to the standard cop-out line of claimed expertise.

No, I do not claim expertise. The real engineers here HAVE professional expertise, but you close your eyes and disregard everything they tell you. You, by contrast, know nothing and can't learn. You are still attempting to debate with people who know vastly more than you do. Your "facts" are bogus. Your errors have been explained to you repeatedly. Again, I ask you to end this silly charade.

 

[lapman]

The data of where the debris damage was is reasonably accurate. The data of where the fires were and when is reasonably accurate. The videos of the collapse clearly show that the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously.

It's the analysis that is fraudulent.


You did not address these key points.

The damage was much greater on floors 8 and 9. The claim that the girder-to-column connections in Group 7 were damaged on the 13th floor but not the 8th and 9th floors is absurd.

The damage occurred 7 hours earlier and there were no fires in the area of Group 7 on floors 10-14. There was no reason for them to collapse at that time.

When you brought all this to NIST's attention, what did they say?

 

[Christopher7]

No, I do not claim expertise. The real engineers here HAVE professional expertise,

What real engineers?

Your "facts" are bogus.

Typical hand waving of the facts rather than addressing them directly

Your errors have been explained to you repeatedly.

Wrong. No one has addressed the fact that there could not be damage to girder-to-column connections on floor 13 without more damage to that same area on floors 8 and 9.

Again, I ask you to end this silly charade.

You persist in attacking me and not the argument.

 

[Christopher7]

When you brought all this to NIST's attention, what did they say?

NIST is no longer taking public comments and you are sidestepping the facts I have pointed out.

The debris damage occurred 7 hours earlier. There were no fires on floors 10-14 in that area. There was no reason for the columns in Group 7 to fail at that time.

 

[The Platypus]

What real engineers?

That game you keep playing can go both ways.

You aren't an engineer, so you aren't qualified to know what you are talking about, therefore, that alone, is enough to dismiss your nonsensical delusions...

 

[The Platypus]

NIST is no longer taking public comments and you are sidestepping the facts I have pointed out.

The debris damage occurred 7 hours earlier. There were no fires on floors 10-14 in that area. There was no reason for the columns in Group 7 to fail at that time.

So your only other option is to go to a forum based on skepticism and try to peddle your delusions like you have Schitzophrenia and OCD?

And you think this just has the big scary "NWO", the Gov't, the mass media, and everyone else, just quaking in their boots from this lame strategy...LMAO Hilarious.

 

[Christopher7]

That game you keep playing can go both ways.

You aren't an engineer, so you aren't qualified to know what you are talking about, therefore, that alone, is enough to dismiss your nonsensical delusions...

Get out of town. It is not necessary to be an engineer to see that there is much more debris damage on floors 8 and 9 that on floor 13. You are just looking for a reason to deny the obvious.

 

[Christopher7]

So your only other option is to go to a forum based on skepticism and try to peddle your delusions like you have Schitzophrenia and OCD?

And you think this just has the big scary "NWO", the Gov't, the mass media, and everyone else, just quaking in their boots from this lame strategy...LMAO Hilarious.

When faced with obvious facts that refute the NIST report JERFers flagrantly ignore Rule 12 in a vain attempt to deny what they cannot deal with.

Selective inforcement of Rule 12 noted.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I'd like to see proof that Christopher7 is really a carpenter.

 

[tfk]

Get out of town. It is not necessary to be an engineer to see that there is much more debris damage on floors 8 and 9 that on floor 13. You are just looking for a reason to deny the obvious.

.
Well, as Exhibit #1 that it clearly takes more engineering understanding than you possess to understand what happened is ...

... your continued inability to understand what happened.

And Irony #1 is the fact that you had a half dozen engineers (including me) here who were perfectly willing to put in a bunch of effort to help you understand it ...

... until your attitude and juggernaut of ignorance pissed us all off to the extent that we all now ignore you.

How ironic is THAT??!!

Ahhh, the Wages of Stupid.

tom

 

[Christopher7]

.And Irony #1 is the fact that you had a half dozen engineers (including me) here who were perfectly willing to put in a bunch of effort to help you understand it ...

Your claims of being an engineer are worthless and your fanatic denial of the facts obvious.

... until your attitude and juggernaut of ignorance pissed us all off to the extent that we all now ignore you.

How ironic is THAT??!!

Ahhh, the Wages of Stupid.

tom

Continued violation of Rule 12 noted.

 

[Justin39640]

Your claims of being an engineer are worthless and your fanatic denial of the facts obvious.

Continued violation of Rule 12 noted.

chris
im well aware that you only have this thread on your favorites (cause i never see you anywhere else) perhaps even as your home page lol

i found a video showing heavy debris and damage extending well north of WTC7 prior to its collapse (from the WTC1 or north tower collapse)

please please please
consider that the building may have been heavily damaged shown by evidence here



if not can you just agree to disagree
for sanity's sake
lol