One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    Interesting generalities. The near free fall I like. There is no evidence produced for this assertion and video shows this not to have happened. So why do troofers keep saying it? The strength factor has nothing to do with the collapse. Once started it clearly overwhelmed the design spec what ever the actual spec was. The strength factor, as any engineer worth the label would clearly de rate during an intense fire in a structure designed to use sprinklers, could not be relevant in this situation.
    I really like the exploding "upward" statement. That is a first. Mostly because it did not happen and it undercuts the demolition argument. Demo experts would never see such a thing happen. Cutting charges are designed to focus toward the object to be cut not outward and certainly not upward. The charges alleged to have been used are very bulky and very slow burning. Less than 1/4 the velocity of C4. Thermite burns more like black powder than C4 and would not have a large quick blast.
    I geuss this guy did not read the engineering report. If he had he might have had facts in his statement instead of vague general arm waving.
     So how close to free fall was the collapse? Not very. Faster than a paper airplane, slower than the large lightweight extenal cladding sheets and glass that easily hit the ground before the rest of the building.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    A boomerang must have hit this Australian wackjob on his noggin, only way to explain this statement: 
     "the collapses, quite simply, cannot have occurred any other way!" 

    9 buildings were destroyed on 9/11 in NY City:
    WTC1
    WTC 2
    WTC7
    the Marriott World Trade Center
    St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. 
    The following buildings were massively damaged & had to be demolished:
    6 World Trade Center,
    5 World Trade Center,
    4 World Trade Center 
    the Deutsche Bank Building

    What say you, Aussie fruitcake? Were all 9 blown up with super nanothermite? 
     Did all 9 buildings 'fall into their own footprint' , 'fall faster than freefall speed' ?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion


    [QUOTE]Every single person from every walk of life that has come forward for 9/11 truth has been viciously attacked, marginalized, and had their income earning potential severely damaged
    Posted by OrwellsNightmare[/QUOTE]

    Same for the people who stand on street corners with signs proclaiming the imminent end of the world and the rise of Kraul, SuperCrab.

    Coincidence?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    "This energy can realistically only have come from explosive charges."

    Or a warp drive installed on the roof. Think about that!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    Whatisitnow,
    KRAUL will have your nuts for lunch, buddy. Do not use KRAUL's name in vain. He is not a happy forgiving savior for the intergalactic community. He's more like Vladimir Putin. A short vicious snot who does not like competition.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]Interesting generalities. The near free fall I like. There is no evidence produced for this assertion and video shows this not to have happened. So why do troofers keep saying it? The strength factor has nothing to do with the collapse. Once started it clearly overwhelmed the design spec what ever the actual spec was. The strength factor, as any engineer worth the label would clearly de rate during an intense fire in a structure designed to use sprinklers, could not be relevant in this situation. I really like the exploding "upward" statement. That is a first. Mostly because it did not happen and it undercuts the demolition argument. Demo experts would never see such a thing happen. Cutting charges are designed to focus toward the object to be cut not outward and certainly not upward. The charges alleged to have been used are very bulky and very slow burning. Less than 1/4 the velocity of C4. Thermite burns more like black powder than C4 and would not have a large quick blast. I geuss this guy did not read the engineering report. If he had he might have had facts in his statement instead of vague general arm waving.  So how close to free fall was the collapse? Not very. Faster than a paper airplane, slower than the large lightweight extenal cladding sheets and glass that easily hit the ground before the rest of the building.
    Posted by topaz978[/QUOTE]

    “Interesting generalities. The near free fall I like. There is no evidence produced for this assertion and video shows this not to have happened. So why do troofers keep saying it?

    Because NIST has said it – I keep posting this, and you keep ignoring it.  Then you make uneducated,  idiotic, unfounded statements like “There is no evidence

    So, one more time, here is the “evidence

    The following 3 paragraphs are excerpted verbatim (that means an exact, unedited, not-out-of-context copy) from the NIST NCSTAR report from page 602

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

    In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12-62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended 7 ft.

    In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance travelled between times t = 1.75 and t = 4.0s.

    In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below(3).  Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.

    (Highlight color added) As you can see, NIST has admitted to real, honest to goodness free fall of the massive WTC7 to the tune of 8 full stories, an incredible amount equal to over 17% of the total height of the 47 story structure. 

    Follow the link provided above, and satisfy yourself that this is the actual NIST report, on the actual government site.  Scroll down to page 602 and satisfy yourself that the excerpt above is exactly as I have posted.  Then tell me once again that there was no admission of, no evidence for, FREE FALL

    This is not a contest of “gotchas” – I have no ego vested in being right about this – I sincerely wish I were wrong because it is so disgusting – but I’m not wrong, because there was free fall of a massive steel frame structure, a free fall equivalent to 8 full stories, each one the size of a football field, and that is physically impossible without enormous amounts of added energy – that’s right… EXPLOSIVES



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    "a free fall equivalent to 8 full stories, each one the size of a football field, and that is physically impossible without enormous amounts of added energy – that’s right… EXPLOSIVES"
    Grim, for the New Year, your resolution needs to be to get some professional help. Evidence of your mental illness is citing to a study that contradicts your stated conclusion.
    The NIST analysis detailed the fall of WTC7 into 3 stages. In Stage 2, there was 'free fall', also known as "gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support"
    If the NIST analysis is correct, and 8 stories fell in so-called 'free fall' in ONLY one of 3 stages of collapse, that contradicts your troofer 'free fall' delusion that the entire building fell too fast.
    17% 'free fall'......that is 83% not 'free fall', isn't it?
    How could the building start to fall by itself in Stage 1, then the explosives kick in for Stage 2 free fall, and then in Stage 3 the collapse slows? Gives a sane person a headache, trying to follow this.

    Under your warped 'logic', if WTC7 took 10 minutes to collapse, and 1% of the building fell in 'free fall', that is proof of explosives!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    Ok now that you see the report for yourself. What possibly could cause a free fall or close to free fall collapse during the second stage. Well an engineer might beleive that the force of the higher floors moved the support structure in such a way that the connected structural elements failed simultaneously. This would be a result of the pancake impact of the upper structure literally causing the structure to rip the bolts out of the steel girders. This is what was observed in the report. Your "quoted" "engineer" had no such technical issues in his random arm waving. Not one word to the failure mode at each stage, even though this was a critical element of the structural failure analysis. He said nothing. Not one relevant detail. So again what part or A&E actually has qualified engineers? Where are their detailed statements. I seen some of the hack material. Where is the structural engineering analysis from professionals you 911 idiots keep saying you have? Show the details not random arm waving.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]Ok now that you see the report for yourself. What possibly could cause a free fall or close to free fall collapse during the second stage. Well an engineer might beleive that the force of the higher floors moved the support structure in such a way that the connected structural elements failed simultaneously. This would be a result of the pancake impact of the upper structure literally causing the structure to rip the bolts out of the steel girders. This is what was observed in the report. Your "quoted" "engineer" had no such technical issues in his random arm waving. Not one word to the failure mode at each stage, even though this was a critical element of the structural failure analysis. He said nothing. Not one relevant detail. So again what part or A&E actually has qualified engineers? Where are their detailed statements. I seen some of the hack material. Where is the structural engineering analysis from professionals you 911 idiots keep saying you have? Show the details not random arm waving.
    Posted by topaz978[/QUOTE]

    Awesome - now you see there really was a free fall collapse - we are making some real progress, a major step to your ultimate enlightenment.

    Now all we have to do is think about how 105 feet of massive steel framed structure could possibly fall at free fall speed.

    So, lets review what free fall really is; free fall is the speed at which an object falls when there is zero resistance to the fall.  That's ZERO resistance, none, nada, zilch - just air.  Not a little bit of resistance - no resistance.  That's what Physics dictates, that's what Newton's Laws are all about.

    There is no way, with "pancake collapses" or any other collapses, that free fall speed can be achieved. The structure below, in the area and shape of a football field, with the perimeter columns, and the central core columns, offer stiff RESISTANCE, and therefore, as long as those columns are below, they present resistance, and therefore NO FREE FALL can be possible.

    This is why NIST took eight years to admit to this, it's a game changer.  They were forced to acknowledge this amazing phenomenon because of the detailed analysis of the videos that prove conclusively the free fall period of over two full seconds, 105 vertical feet, eight full stories of massive building, and this analysis was done to perfection by a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  Not by the heavily funded NIST and company, by a unpaid and self motivated truther.  They were FORCED to admit it, and now they hope no one realizes that free fall is physically impossible without massive amounts of external energy directed at the underlying support system.

    Now that you understand there really was free fall, it's time you decided whether you want to know the real truth regardless of what it is, or if you want to continue to be bamboozled, played for a fool, by the  perpetrators.

    I once was where you are now - in denial, so I know how hard this next step you must take really is. Let me tell you this - there's no shame in being wrong, we've been fooled by the very best, there's only shame if you refuse to admit what must be becoming very apparent to you - 9/11 was a false flag attack, an inside job.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]"a free fall equivalent to 8 full stories, each one the size of a football field, and that is physically impossible without enormous amounts of added energy – that’s right… EXPLOSIVES" Grim, for the New Year, your resolution needs to be to get some professional help. Evidence of your mental illness is citing to a study that contradicts your stated conclusion. The NIST analysis detailed the fall of WTC7 into 3 stages. In Stage 2, there was 'free fall', also known as " gravitational acceleration , as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support" If the NIST analysis is correct, and 8 stories fell in so-called 'free fall' in ONLY one of 3 stages of collapse, that contradicts your troofer 'free fall' delusion that the entire building fell too fast. 17% 'free fall'......that is 83% not 'free fall', isn't it? How could the building start to fall by itself in Stage 1, then the explosives kick in for Stage 2 free fall, and then in Stage 3 the collapse slows? Gives a sane person a headache, trying to follow this. Under your warped 'logic', if WTC7 took 10 minutes to collapse, and 1% of the building fell in 'free fall', that is proof of explosives!
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Spin - Spin - Spin.

    Distort - Distort - Distort.

    Dosen't it get old for you Bob?

    1% Bob?

    How about 8 floors out of 47? What percent is that then?  Hmmmm, pretty close to 20% by my calculations.

    So nearly 20% of a massive building, eight floors each the size of a football field collapse as though there was absolutely nothing below them but air, and in your spinning distorted world, that's just A-OK

    You have aggressively denied free fall at every turn for years, and now you have been proven wrong (by NIST), so what do you do?  Do you care that the free fall means there had to be explosive shenanigans behind the scenes, that the official story is utter nonsense, that we were attacked from the inside?  Nope, you just step back a bit and spin/distort some more.

    Another distortion, another paycheck.  Hey if you didn't do it, somebody else would, right Bob?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    A New Year, the same old paranoid lunacy.
    Easy to tell when I have wasted my time with 4 or 5 posts; sure as shooting, Grim calls me out as a paid CIA agent. (We get time and a half posting on holidays)
    Explosives is not the only explanation for this partial 'free fall' of WTC7 , the NIST report itself explains it. Your rant doesnt address what NIST said. 

    Grim, if you cite to the NIST Report, you must accept it has some validity. You cant cherry pick 'free fall' and ignore the rest. You must refute it.

    The NIST report details 3 stages.
    "In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face"

    Let's apply Grim logic:
    1) hidden explosives make a building 'free fall'.
    2) in the WTC7 collapse Stage 1, the initial collapse was not 'free fall'
    3) Ergo, the initial collapse was not caused by explosives.

    So, by your own troofer 'logic' ...WTC7, after fires consumed it for hours, started to collapse slowly. A few seconds into the inevitable fall, hidden explosives went off , causing the building to 'free fall' for a few seconds.  
    Makes sense--to mentally deranged schizo morons. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]Planes did not hit the building either and family members did not die.
    Posted by smidda[/QUOTE]

    Co-mingling falsehoods with facts do not alter the facts.

    Disinfo trolls have spread fantastic stories, like no planes/holograms, focused energy beams from orbiting satellites, even alien UFO's - so the average Joe would get confused and just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars.

    But when NIST admits to 108 feet of free fall, this fact has been set in concrete - no denials or spinning can alter the fact.

    And the fact of 108 feet of free fall of a steel framed structure can only be explained by 108 feet of vertical steel columns that simultaneously vanished, offering zero resistance.

    And there is nothing in this physical world but demolition charges that could produce the results that NIST was forced to admit did indeed happen.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]A New Year, the same old paranoid lunacy. Easy to tell when I have wasted my time with 4 or 5 posts; sure as shooting, Grim calls me out as a paid CIA agent. (We get time and a half posting on holidays) Explosives is not the only explanation for this partial 'free fall' of WTC7 , the NIST report itself explains it. Your rant doesnt address what NIST said.  Grim, if you cite to the NIST Report, you must accept it has some validity. You cant cherry pick 'free fall' and ignore the rest. You must refute it. The NIST report details 3 stages. "In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face" Let's apply Grim logic: 1) hidden explosives make a building 'free fall'. 2) in the WTC7 collapse Stage 1, the initial collapse was not 'free fall' 3) Ergo, the initial collapse was not caused by explosives. So, by your own troofer 'logic' ...WTC7, after fires consumed it for hours, started to collapse slowly. A few seconds into the inevitable fall, hidden explosives went off , causing the building to 'free fall' for a few seconds.   Makes sense--to mentally deranged schizo morons. 
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Sorry Bob, nice try at some tasty disinfo-spin, but 100% wrong.

    Go watch some of the videos that look like the Towers collapses, (all controlled demolitions, BTW) and you will notice that each collapse begins at a slow pace, then picks up speed as a combination of the initial downwards inertia is enhanced by additional detonations.

    In your Bizzarro World, a car with a top speed of 120MPH starts off at 120MPH

    Fits right in with one of your other classic observations that "Nano Thermite is Science Fiction", remember that one?


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    That is about 6 stories of free fall for a building over 110 stories high. That is a fact and you cant change that. It would not be unusual for a steel structure under such a massive impact as having 40 stories of structure fall on the steel frame of the building to have a localized simultaneous failure due to overload. On a building this size 6 stories is not a HUGE failure of the structure but a point of local failure. There are many ways for this to happen. Your explosive theory just does not match any of the known facts.
     Having 40 stories of steel and concrete fall on one floor during a pancake collapse is is really good reason for this to happen. There are a lot of things in this physical world that you refuse to understand fool. NIST was not forced in any way to admit anything, they just reported the facts. YOU distorted the facts not to report information but to LIE.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion : Sorry Bob, nice try at some tasty disinfo-spin, but 100% wrong. Go watch some of the videos that look like the Towers collapses, (all controlled demolitions, BTW) and you will notice that each collapse begins at a slow pace, then picks up speed as a combination of the initial downwards inertia is enhanced by additional detonations. In your Bizzarro World, a car with a top speed of 120MPH starts off at 120MPH Fits right in with one of your other classic observations that " Nano Thermite is Science Fiction ", remember that one?
    Posted by OrwellsNightmare[/QUOTE]

    Controlled demo?  Bogus.  "Nano" thermite, is equally bogus.  The engineers comments that you cut and pasted to start this thread are silly.  Of course, I could point them all out to you, but that would be like talking to a coffee table...then you would go on to accuse me of being a paid agent of the government or something silly like that.

    Come up with something that can stand on it's own and isn't taken out of context, biased from the beginning, or simply a lie, then I am all ears.  I do read much of what you post, and so far, everything you have posted has ranged from very unconvincing to a flat out joke.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]That is about 6 stories of free fall for a building over 110 stories high. That is a fact and you cant change that. It would not be unusual for a steel structure under such a massive impact as having 40 stories of structure fall on the steel frame of the building to have a localized simultaneous failure due to overload. On a building this size 6 stories is not a HUGE failure of the structure but a point of local failure. There are many ways for this to happen. Your explosive theory just does not match any of the known facts.  Having 40 stories of steel and concrete fall on one floor during a pancake collapse is is really good reason for this to happen. There are a lot of things in this physical world that you refuse to understand fool. NIST was not forced in any way to admit anything, they just reported the facts. YOU distorted the facts not to report information but to LIE.
    Posted by topaz978[/QUOTE]

    That is about 6 stories of free fall for a building over 110 stories high.

    Topaz, we are talking about WTC7 which was 47 stories tall, not the 110 stories of WTC1 or WTC2.

    And NIST specifies 8 stories of free fall, not the 6 you grasped out of thin air.  8 stories out of 47 is just under 20% of the total height of the building, a major, highly significant event, as one fifth of this building fell as fast as a bowling ball dropped over the edge of a tall building,.

    That is a fact and you cant change that. It would not be unusual for a steel structure under such a massive impact as having 40 stories of structure fall on the steel frame of the building to have a localized simultaneous failure due to overload. On a building this size 6 stories is not a HUGE failure of the structure but a point of local failure.

    See the paragraph above

    There are many ways for this to happen. Your explosive theory just does not match any of the known facts.  Having 40 stories of steel and concrete fall on one floor during a pancake collapse is is really good reason for this to happen. There are a lot of things in this physical world that you refuse to understand fool.

    This is too funny - you spend all this time rebutting my posts, yet, embarrassingly, you don’t even have a clue about the content of these posts that seem to upset you so much. But you’re right on one thing, there is a fool posting here, and I congratulate you for outing him.

    NIST was not forced in any way to admit anything, they just reported the facts.

    Bull – NIST originally presented their “Pancake Theory” for WTC1 and WTC2, and they were forced to retract that nonsensical theory, so that’s one forced retraction right there

    Additionally, NIST took 8 years to finally admit to this 105 feet of WTC7 free fall, they have been attacked from numerous directions with highly detailed proof, which they finally had to admit was correct.  And they still try to downplay and minimize this amazing – PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE – event as much as they can.  Why did it take them 8 years to come to the conclusion that other structural engineers have known about for years? 

    YOU distorted the facts not to report information but to LIE. Posted by topaz978[/QUOTE]

    No – YOU completely misread the direct quotes I posted from NIST, and have gone off on a tantrum with all the wrong information.  I can’t even believe you actually posted this confused nonsense here.  No wonder the government has such a hold on your mind; they need only the tiniest pair of tweezers to do the job.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion : Controlled demo?  Bogus.  "Nano" thermite, is equally bogus.  The engineers comments that you cut and pasted to start this thread are silly.  Of course, I could point them all out to you, but that would be like talking to a coffee table...then you would go on to accuse me of being a paid agent of the government or something silly like that. Come up with something that can stand on it's own and isn't taken out of context, biased from the beginning, or simply a lie, then I am all ears.  I do read much of what you post, and so far, everything you have posted has ranged from very unconvincing to a flat out joke.
    Posted by Rushfan2112[/QUOTE]

    If you can't see that 20% of a massive steel framed building falling at *absolute* free fall speed is physically impossible, then a video of the perpetrators performing whole the operation with a voiceover, signed confessions and DNA samples would not be enough to break through that cement encased skull of yours.

    Thankfully, there are thousands with more open minds coming aboard every day, and just like the American Revolution, we can, and will, make it work without 100% participation.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    Bottom line on this:

    This is the largest controlled demolition of a building in the US, prior to 9/11, from the company that did the work:

    "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    You don't just waltz into a building like one of the towers and set all of those explosives, det cords, weakening structural members, etc., without oh, several thousands of people watching you work daily.  And the combined footage of the two towers is far larger than the Hudson building, meaning several times more detonation gear and larger/more crews.

    Also, there's the nonsense about WTC number seven being demolished as well.  Horsecrap.  Can anyone tell me the effect of two back-to-back seismic events - and they were registered as seismic events in various places - occurring with the epicenter say a few thousand feet away at most?  That is, after debris from both towers had cascaded down onto the structure, weakening it?

    Damned near every time I hear one of these Troofer fools speak, they talk a great deal of technobabble, but then ignore some very basic facts, such as the above.  And there's a lot more to contradict their woo-woo theories.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]Bottom line on this: This is the largest controlled demolition of a building in the US, prior to 9/11, from the company that did the work: "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition." http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store You don't just waltz into a building like one of the towers and set all of those explosives, det cords, weakening structural members, etc., without oh, several thousands of people watching you.  And the combined footage of the two towers is far larger than the Hudson building, meaning several times more detonation gear and larger/more crews. Also, there's the nonsense about WTC number seven being demolished as well.  Horsecrap.  Can anyone tell me the effect of two back-to-back seismic events - and they were registered as seismic events in various places - occurring with the epicenter say a few thousand feet away at most?  That is, after debris from both towers had cascaded down onto the structure, weakening it. Damned near every time I hear one of these Troofer fools speak, they talk a great deal of technobabble, but then ignore some very basic facts, such as the above.  And there's a lot more to contradict their woo-woo theories.
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican[/QUOTE]

    So I gather you are implying there was not enough time to prepare WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 for a controlled demolition?

    Let’s not beat around the bush here, if this is “the bottom line on this”, please be more explicit on exactly what you are trying to convey.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion : If you can't see that 20% of a massive steel framed building falling at *absolute* free fall speed is physically impossible, then a video of the perpetrators performing whole operation, signed confessions and DNA samples would not be enough to break through that cement encased skull of yours. Thankfully, there are thousands with more open minds coming aboard every day, and just like the American Revolution, we can, and will, make it work without 100% participation.
    Posted by OrwellsNightmare[/QUOTE]

    What you don't seem to understand is that your cherry picked facts don't support your story.  Come up with something that can stand up to the observed events, not taken out of context, biased from the start, or simply a lie, and I promise you will have my undivided attention.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    What I'm trying to convey, Alex, er, Orwell, is that this isn't the kind of thing that can be pulled off like some skulking thief in the deep of night.  It is just plain not possible to do this without being so heavily observed it isn't even funny.

    For example, ever wonder what a great deal of what they're doing inside of a structure to be demolished is?  They remove literally everything, walls, flooring, supports, everything.  Then they make welded cuts in hundreds of specific locations, else the explosives won't do a damned thing.  Not to mention the det cord can't precisely be hidden, nor the explosive "packages."

    In point of fact, even the radio controllers used to set off the munitions require repeaters and antennaes to be placed throughout the structure, because steel and concrete block radio signals.  And the timing of the detonations is on the order of milliseconds in places, can't have those fail to work in proper sequence.

    Further, those radio controlled explosives are susceptible to RFI, which is why radios, cell phones, what have you, are forbidden from within the structure while explosives are being placed.  Yet these thousands of pounds of explosives were all lain in a building (more correctly, buildings) with power, computers, cell phones, Blackberries, WiFi, etc. all operating?  That's a really good way to be working one moment, and the next be a fine mist spread out over a quarter mile.  Oops.  Explosives aren't a joke.

    Average people seem to think this kind of thing can be pulled off like a scene in a Arnold Swarzenegger movie, and it just isn't so.  Demolitions jobs, like many other very large scale projects, are invasive, sweaty, labor intensive.  Noticeable.  Loud.  Messy.

    Nuts.  That's the only possible answer to Troofers.  Nuts.  Learn some basic physics and engineering.  Damnit.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    And here's a bit of information on the seismic events involving the towers, to show what I meant about WTC 7:

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

    Buildings are generally not designed to accept those kinds of seismic events with the epicenters all of a city block away.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    Next, of course, is how the NIST or any competant structural or materials or civil engineer will reply "Bullcrap" if you tell them the fires from the impacting planes couldn't have brought the structures down. 

    The melting point of structural steel is not the important part - it's where it does a phase change due to the heating.  It loses it's ability to handle the kind of stress from the weight it's bearing. 

    Steel has a crystalline structure, which is the result of a long and involved process to cast it.  You just don't melt a bit of ore and charcoal and end up with good product.  The process involves high temperatures, other minerals in careful amounts, and with careful cooling, the steel retains a strong but flexible crystalline structure.  But it can be reheated to where the structure will revert back to far less strong state.  The fires were fully capable of doing so.

    Again, simple physics and engineering.

    Buildings are designed to handle forces in certain defined directions.  The weight load on a building is downwards, with slight twisting and flexing motions due to resonance between the winds and the structure.  It's holds up all of it's weight in a balance of all of these forces by an intricate network of load-bearing members, which spread out the weight load.  Look at an arch in a church or a dome, and you're watching another version of the same thing in practice.

    Buildings are NOT designed to abruptly have a large weight load pancake onto the one beneath it - which is the inevitable result when the load bearing capabilitiy of the structure directly above the fires catastrophically fails.

    Again, simple physics and engineering.

    It just amazes me how much people don't know, that they can buy into these kind of conspiracy theories.

    OK.  I have had to be up late, working, so I thought I'd get a bunch of this out for you.  Go town if you feel like.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]"a free fall equivalent to 8 full stories, each one the size of a football field, and that is physically impossible without enormous amounts of added energy – that’s right… EXPLOSIVES" Grim, for the New Year, your resolution needs to be to get some professional help. Evidence of your mental illness is citing to a study that contradicts your stated conclusion. The NIST analysis detailed the fall of WTC7 into 3 stages. In Stage 2, there was 'free fall', also known as " gravitational acceleration , as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support" If the NIST analysis is correct, and 8 stories fell in so-called 'free fall' in ONLY one of 3 stages of collapse, that contradicts your troofer 'free fall' delusion that the entire building fell too fast. 17% 'free fall'......that is 83% not 'free fall', isn't it? How could the building start to fall by itself in Stage 1, then the explosives kick in for Stage 2 free fall, and then in Stage 3 the collapse slows? Gives a sane person a headache, trying to follow this. Under your warped 'logic', if WTC7 took 10 minutes to collapse, and 1% of the building fell in 'free fall', that is proof of explosives!
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]
    And don't forget the "fact" that the 2 buildings "fell in their own foot print" yet took out 7 other buildings.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrwellsNightmare. Show OrwellsNightmare's posts

    Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion

    In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: One Structural Engineer's Professional 9/11 Opinion : What you don't seem to understand is that your cherry picked facts don't support your story.  Come up with something that can stand up to the observed events, not taken out of context, biased from the start, or simply a lie, and I promise you will have my undivided attention.
    Posted by Rushfan2112[/QUOTE]

    My cherry-picked facts don't support my story?

    Let's see... what is my story?

    I say my story is; 3 buildings were induced to collapse in visual ways that thousands of trained and licensed architects and engineers say required much more energy than the total energy available in a gravity collapse. 

    Of greater significance, Newton’s Third Law of Motion had to be violated for these collapses to have occurred without additional energy; when one object applies a force on a second object, the second object applies a force on the first that has an equal magnitude but opposite direction.

    With respect to the collapse of WTC1, when the 12 story section above the damage zone fell on the lower 94 story section, Newton says the lower section applied equal force to the upper section. These forces are called action-reaction forces. NIST has determined that this impact created the complete destruction of the lower section, all the way to the ground. The fatal flaw in this theory is, the upper section would have suffered equal action-reaction force, hence equal destruction, therefore the collapse would have run out of energy and ceased at about the 80th floor when the upper section had been completely destroyed.

    Look at the FEMA diagram below and try to imagine the upper sections crashing through the complete lower sections, and then finally destroying themselves – that’s what NIST would have you believe.

    FULL DISCLOSURE – I ENHANCED THIS DIAGRAM WITH COLOR FOR ADDED VISUAL REFERENCE

    And to make matters even worse for the official story, the Towers had 4-5 times thicker steel columns at the bottom, tapering upwards to the top, because the lower floors had to support so much more weight than the upper floors.

    So that’s my story, with regard to WTC1 and WTC2. And the “cherry-picked facts” were provided by Sir Isaac Newton himself

     

Share