29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Bluesky]

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.

Although the ae911truth have 29 engineers supporting them. When it comes to tall building designers they do not have the support of 1 of the top thousand tall building engineers in the world.

Does that mean that every engineer is in the pay of the US government or just that it is transparent nonsense for those who know about tall buildings.

Hmm lets think about that. Do you think that it is possible to have a logical debate with the likes of the people in this forum.

 

[Bluesky]

What real engineers?

Typical hand waving of the facts rather than addressing them directly

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.

You persist in attacking me and not the argument.

#7,
Do you have any views on WTC1 and WTC2, or does your whole argument revolve around WTC7?

The collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are so obvious not related to CD, that it is not surprising that you have no arguments to support CD for these towers.

 

[deep]

Psssst. You could verify my engineering background by showing a sampling of my posts to ANY mechanical or structural engineer.

A sampling of your posts on an Internet forum where everyone uses fake names would not verify your engineering background, one way or the other. Who are "you"? How do we know that "you" authored those posts? There's no way to tell from a sampling of your posts.

I'm not suggesting that you have someone else write your posts, or even that you're not an engineer - just that your proposed verification method is flawed.

 

[triforcharity]

Deep, **********************l****??)

I bet you ************************** like to question other peoples' work, but can't do your own. ****.

Content edited due to breach of Rule 12; attack the argument and not the arguer.

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

 

[tfk]

A sampling of your posts on an Internet forum where everyone uses fake names would not verify your engineering background, one way or the other. Who are "you"? How do we know that "you" authored those posts? There's no way to tell from a sampling of your posts.

I'm not suggesting that you have someone else write your posts, or even that you're not an engineer - just that your proposed verification method is flawed.

.
Well, let me put it a little more pragmatically.

He (or you) could verify that my information is accurate, whether its source is internal or external. That's all that matters, of course.

Tom

PS. You guys DO have distrusting, conspiratorial minds, don't you?!!

 

[Toke]

tfk,
I might be too trusting, but you have so far given me no reason to doubt your claim of proffesion. Until that I will assume you to be truthfull.

 

[hokie]

* False. The center of gravity need only move off center to exert more downward force on the tilt side causing that side to collapse faster and thereby increasing the tilt.

This double talk also ignores Newton's first law.
An object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The top of the south tower was falling to one side. It would continue falling to one side unless some external force were applied to resist this motion. Since no force could be applied to the falling top block, the only possibility is that all the support on the high side was remove with explosives.

Please don't hand me that crap about your expertise. You are just repeating the disinformation double talk that tries to tap dance around the law of gravity and Newtons first law.

C7 you are having trouble understanding many issues here, possibly everything being states.

1. You claim that the the top was moving to one side.

Please substantiate this claim. Are you saying a point on the surface moved to the side? Are you saying the COG moved to the side?

2. You claim no force acted on the top.

This is your idea of a joke. That is ridiculous. Did contact with the building below not act on the top? Did gravity not act on the top?

3. Then you invoke explosives as the only possibility.

This is the continued sign of a closed mind. 1 is wrong. 2 is wrong. Then 1, 2 implies 3 is wrong.

P.S. Learn what double talk really means before you use it again. If you get anything out of this thread at least learn one thing.

 

[Justin39640]

It would continue falling to one side unless some external force were applied to resist this motion.

um.... like gravity?
in a vacuum and in the absence of gravity you might be correct

....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

um.... like gravity?
in a vacuum and in the absence of gravity you might be correct

....

I don't think he understood that in order for the rotation to continue without the entire mass falling down, the fulcrum had to remain intact. He of course cares more about mining out singular points rather than reading the whole and making the connection.

 

[Justin39640]

I don't think he understood that in order for the rotation to continue without the entire mass falling down, the fulcrum had to remain intact. He of course cares more about mining out singular points rather than reading the whole and making the connection.

the way they talk about it
it seems like they really believe it should have looked like a zippo zighter opening up

 

[rwguinn]

The word "Hinge" confuses them.
As do most English/American words.

 

[lapman]

I don't think he understood that in order for the rotation to continue without the entire mass falling down, the fulcrum had to remain intact. He of course cares more about mining out singular points rather than reading the whole and making the connection.

Add to that the resistance from the floors below as it crashed down would arrest any further rotation.

 

[hokie]

I don't think he saw rotation when he made that comment.

 

[tfk]

You are desperately trying to talk around the FACT that

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 105 feet!

Thar's what it says on page 45 of the NIST report.

.
Chris,

I just stumbled across this from Chandler's own website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

Starting at 1:45, you'll hear Chandler's claim:

Here is David Chandler saying that you are wrong. He says, correctly, that "the northwest corner fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity".

This is a precise way of saying "fell NEAR the acceleration of gravity". And is specifically not equivalent to saying "it fell AT the acceleration of gravity."

Which is exactly what I & several others have been saying to you all along.

Care to stop pitching a hissy-fit now?

Tom

 

[Bluesky]

I loved this video posted by BasqueArch:

Demolition using hydraulic jacks pushing structural walls over, no explosives, large clouds of dust produced by colliding concrete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

In Balzac-Vitry the bottom 6 or 7 floors (A) carried the top 6 or 7 floors (C) before, and the top floors (C) are then dropped on (A) and (A) and (C) are crushed by gravity. (A) is crushed one-way (C) is crushed the-other-way.

<snip for brevity>

This building shows many of the characteristics of failure that the "29 experts" from ae911truth say should not happen when a building collapses.

It shows rapid failure, probably at 60-80% g which was just like the WTC1 and 2.
It shows simultaneous failure of all columns at every level. (of course it wouldn't fail if they weren't simultaneous.)
It shows that the tower failed thro the center of strength of the tower below.
It shows the "troubling" uniformity.
It does not topple
It shows a pyroclastic cloud of dust
It appears to defy the laws of aetruther physics

Of course it disproves Heiwa's silly axiom
And it also shows how a local failure can can easily lead to a global collapse. Even if the lower part was another 50 stories of the same type of structural system then you would expect it to keep on going.

 

[Heiwa]

Of course it disproves Heiwa's silly axiom
And it also shows how a local failure can can easily lead to a global collapse. Even if the lower part was another 50 stories of the same type of structural system then you would expect it to keep on going.

According the Björkman axiom part C cannot one-way crush down or collapse part A. And local failures between parts A and C have even less possibility to produce a one-way crush down. So the conclusion is that the collapse is, e.g. controlled demolition.

 

[twinstead]

According the Björkman axiom part C cannot one-way crush down or collapse part A. And local failures between parts A and C have even less possibility to produce a one-way crush down. So the conclusion is that the collapse is, e.g. controlled demolition.

Big part B (the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation with mass added by each little part A it crushes) crushes little part A (only the floor just below the collapse front) and repeats until there are no more part A's. So, the conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa applies sweeping generalizations to all forms of construction. Anyone who has performed a case study should immediately know the implications of such an absurd set of statements. Buildings vary in construction and material and they each perform very differently based on the choices architects and engineers make in the design stages of construction.

In my educated opinion, trying to explain the concept to him when he himself doesn't understand it in the first place is wholly pointless. And on top of that he's one of the 29 individuals on the AE911 listing spoken about in the OP... it says volumes about the standards of the group

 

[Bluesky]

According the Björkman axiom part C cannot one-way crush down or collapse part A. And local failures between parts A and C have even less possibility to produce a one-way crush down. So the conclusion is that the collapse is, e.g. controlled demolition.

Perhaps you should look at the video and then explain.

 

[Heiwa]

Perhaps you should look at the video and then explain.

All done and described in my papers. Just read them.