25 New Structural Engineer Petition Signers!

[JohnyCanuck]

AE911Truth Addressed 100 of the 400 Structural Engineers at National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) convention.


......Thanks to our backers, we hosted a first-class exhibit booth that attracted many curious convention-goers. Throughout the two days we participated in this three-day event, more than 100 structural engineers saw the evidence we presented demonstrating the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7.

Of those we engaged in conversation, 25 of them signed our petition demanding a new investigation. How did we get such a high percentage to stop by our booth and sign on the dotted line? As attendees walked past, we asked: "Did you know a third tower came down on 9/11?" Hearing that question more than 14 years after the tragic event had become a dim, distant memory in their minds, they generally stopped dead in their tracks and, with a puzzled look, asked, "What?!"

"Yeah," we responded, pointing to the looping video on our TV monitor. "Look at Building 7. How is it coming down? Did fire cause it to fall that way? Or is that a controlled demolition?" Most of them replied matter-of-factly: "Controlled demolition." Our next line: "NIST says 'normal office fires.' But fire has never brought down a steel-framed skyscraper — and no plane hit this building. Would you like to join the 2,350 architects and engineers who are calling for a new independent investigation?"

snip

"When you grab people walking by, you might think they'd be annoyed that they're being roped in for a speech or something, but a lot of them are very interested. When they see the videos on our two screens running the collapse of Building 7 over and over every ten seconds, and they hear us ask if they think a fire could bring the building down, they can't help but give their honest opinion: "No . . . that looks like a controlled demolition."


http://www.ae911truth.org/news/239-news-media-events-ncsea-summit-vegas.html

[hack89]

1. So WTC had a shit ton of burning debris fall on it

Last edited Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

creating a 20 story gouge in the side of the building - the damage was so severe the FDNY was monitoring a bulge in the side of the building for hours before it collapsed. Add several large unfought fires and it is not a mystery why WTC 7 collapsed.

[William Seger]

2. Not a mystery, huh?

So, where did the black ops ninja CD team get those magical silent explosives? That's why we need a new investigation.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove WTC 7 came down due to fires

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true.

NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.

1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.

NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred. It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner. Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration.

This is consistent with Shyam Sunder’s statement at the WTC7 technical briefing on August 26, 2008 (which was his initial public attempt to deny free-fall along with his justification for that denial):

“… a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it … there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”

Given the mismatch between the NIST computer animations and the video record of the actual destruction, it is clear that NIST’s assumptions (computer inputs ) {i.e. the computer inputs NIST refuses to make public so they could be checked and verified by indepdendent scientists and engineers /JC} were substantially in error. It was NIST’s job to explain the destruction that actually occurred, not to posit some possible way in which the destruction could have occurred. Their model, which does not reflect the observed 2.25 seconds (about 100 feet) of free fall, should be judged a complete failure, or a cover-up.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/faqs/733-faq-11-does-the-nist-wtc-7-computer-animation-of-the-collapse-prove-that-the-skyscraper-came-down-by-fire.html

[William Seger]

4. "if it looks like a CD, it must be a CD"

Gage likes to brag about how many people he's suckered into signing his petition with that "logic" after showing a video of WTC 7 falling (with the sound off, of course). The invalid inference is obvious enough to most people, but a bigger problem is that the premise is just bullshit: WTC 7 does not really look like a CD, much less sound like one.

The NIST WTC 7 FEA modeled the major structural members and connections, but some simplifications needed to be made to get the number of elements down to 3 million. One simplification was to omit the curtain wall which formed the exterior shell of the building, because it did not contribute to the gravity load-bearing capacity. However, it was quite strong and rigid because it was designed to resist wind loads. The NIST model approximates what was happening to the interior columns and beams of the building, but without modeling that rigid curtain wall, there's no reason to expect the model to look like the videos of WTC 7 in which all we can see is the curtain wall.

Furthermore, the NIST hypothesis does indeed explain the 2.25 seconds of freefall: about 8 floors above the 7th floor suffered a horizontal progressive collapse, so the freefall simply implies that by that point the columns were providing zero resistance because they were broken at their splices. But the NIST hypothesis also explains the 1.25 seconds of less-than-freefall before that as being the time when the columns were providing resistance but were buckling, allowing the building shell to descend about 7 feet. The NIST hypothesis also explains the 7 seconds or so before that, from the time that the east penthouse fell, as the time during which the interior structure collapsed progressively.

Since silent explosives do not exist, there is no reason for a rational person to seriously consider the CD hypothesis, but in fact there isn't any CD hypothesis that actually explains what was happening before the 2.25 seconds of freefall.

At some point, perhaps even you will start to consider the possibility that Richard Gage has led the "truth movement" down a blind alley with the WTC 7 nonsense. If he ever gets that independent investigation and the best he can do is call "experts" like Dusterwald to say "I don't understand this," then they're going to get clobbered by actual experts who not only understand it pretty well but can explain it.

[wildbilln864]

5. ah more specious sophistry eh....

Fail!