Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Sunstealer]

The problem is you believe a standardized test using base line parameters as part of the standardized testing should have been replicated by reality which had nothing to do with the reason nor the parameters under which the NIST testing was done. The fact that the test assemblies didn't collapse completely or at all is not an indication of whether or not the damaged structure and fire proofing would provide the same as-built performance, and this much is obvious from the fact that the towers were seriously damaged. The tests were done only to establish what rating the towers had in their as-built condition to create a baseline model and assist with their other work

In other words, you're outrage is with a red herring.

If only there was a way to find this information within 20 seconds.

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_testing#Success_and_failure_in_fire_testing

Oh look they even have a specific section called Limitations of the Fire Test Standard. Woulda thunk it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You do realise that the degree of floor truss sag was an observation from photographs, and therefore an input rather than an output of modelling, right? Or is that another of your irreducible delusions?

Dave

Dave, the truss sagging is actually a moot point as it did not pull the exterior columns inward in the NIST model.

They needed to apply an artificial lateral load to the exterior columns to bow them inward.

I think the only legitimate way the exterior columns could be pulled inward was from a core collapse pulling them inward through the trusses. That does check out when analyzed and we see the North Tower antenna go down first indicating a core first collapse.

 

[NoahFence]

Dave, the truss sagging is actually a moot point as it did not pull the exterior columns inward in the NIST model.

They needed to apply an artificial lateral load to the exterior columns to bow them inward.

I think the only legitimate way the exterior columns could be pulled inward was from a core collapse pulling them inward through the trusses. That does check out when analyzed and we see the North Tower antenna go down first indicating a core first collapse.

Wouldn't a 757 count as applying a lateral load?

 

[jay howard]

Who's "we?"

What is your problem with basic understanding of the boundaries of this debate? The question is clear. "We" you and me in this instance and anyone who is participating in this discussion. Would you like to take issue with that? Would you like to let your misunderstanding drive your responses?

And to the question of "How do you reconcile the floor truss burn test results with the FDCM theory?" you respond, "they didn't intend that test to inform the collapse theory."

In your words:

By the same means we have reconciled them for the past several pages, despite your unwillingness to comprehend it. You don't understand the ASTM E119 tests, how they are conducted, why they are conducted, what they are meant to show, and what information NIST proposed to obtain by conducting them.

Intent is your defense.

Tell me JayU, how does intention bear on the collected data? Does intent change the max temperatures? Does intent keep the structure from collapsing?

If the scientists had INTENDED to test for a Fire-Driven Cascade effect, would they have seen it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think the only legitimate way the exterior columns could be pulled inward was from a core collapse pulling them inward through the trusses. That does check out when analyzed and we see the North Tower antenna go down first indicating a core first collapse.

Since the inward bowing of the exterior columns was also an observation, and occurred progressively minutes prior to the initiation of final collapse, your hypothesis suggests that the core failed gradually up until the point where the structure became unstable; in other words, you have advanced quite a strong argument against a controlled collapse initiation.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the scientists had INTENDED to test for a Fire-Driven Cascade effect, would they have seen it?

Quite possibly, because they might have (a) heated the assemblies to the limits of the furnace rather than a specific temperature/time profile, and (b) not stopped the tests when it looked like the assemblies were in danger of collapsing.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

"We" you and me in this instance...

Then you don't speak for me in describing what "we" have or have not determined. I will make and interpret my own arguments, if that's all right with you.

Tell me JayU, how does intention bear on the collected data?

It bears on how the data is to be interpreted and what conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from it. You are trying to foist your layman's understanding of forensic engineering onto the problem. This is why your conclusions differ markedly from those drawn by the relevant professionals regarding the 9/11 investigation.

Again, the thread is to discuss whether a legitimate reason exists to question, in this case, NIST's forensic engineering practice. I don't consider the failure to meet an uninformed expectation to be a legitimate reason.

 

[jay howard]

No just lost interest, in the ravent ranting over the years.
I because of your description misunderstood the test, as
a modeled structural integrity test, not a fire proofing test.

I believe your capacity to carry a load of bull is much greater than mine.

You said the UL truss system burn tests measured the temperatures of the SFRM. You made that up, not me. You inserted it to avoid facing the implications of the fact that the steel in these tests got to more than 800C for about an hour--not to mention the gradual climb in temperatures--by virtue of the fact that the SFRM did it's job in slowing the heat accumulation rate.

The steel in Test 2 was about 820C, and held steady for about 50 minutes. How much strength does this steel have at 820C?

And how long did building 2 stand after the plane crash?

Anyone?

Again, it's the psychological disposition of "debunkers" that makes answering certain questions in sequence so difficult. We've all seen the strength/heat curves, and if you haven't, it takes all of 2.2 seconds to pull one up on google images.

Yet, the truss test showed that they can handle a maximum load at less than 10% of their room-temperature strength for longer than building 2 even stood after the plane hit. But on the psychological level, all the defenses about how it only takes 650C for steel to lose 50% of its room-temperature strength go right out the window when compared side-by-side with the actual results of the controlled tests.

 

[JayUtah]

If only there was a way to find this information within 20 seconds.

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_testing#Success_and_failure_in_fire_testing

Oh look they even have a specific section called Limitations of the Fire Test Standard. Woulda thunk it.

Yeah, this actually provoked good discussion in the industry ten years ago when the fire-testing question first arose. And as I recall, a lot of it was being pushed by NIST, but I don't know where it eventually landed. Essentially the only methods that had useful enough repositories of baseline and profile data were the ASTM E119 methods and their equivalents, which were admittedly based on aged presumptions of construction types and methods and combustible loads. There is a limit to what can be understood by applying outdated test protocols, but conversely there is a limit to what can be understood by making up tests on the fly, with no body of baseline data to put it in context.

But yes, the upshot of all this was, "Gee, we need to develop better methods of fire-testing that tell us more what we want to know and are based on more modern conditions."

 

[jay howard]

Then you don't speak for me in describing what "we" have or have not determined. I will make and interpret my own arguments, if that's all right with you.

I understand where you stand on the question in the OP, but unless you have some special knowledge that the rest of us do not, all we have to evaluate the question are reasons. And yours suck like a vacuum.

It bears on how the data is to be interpreted...

Really? How does intent change the fact that the steel in Test 2 got to more than 800C for almost an hour? The only answer possible is: "IT DOESN'T". Your reliance on intent is just another attempt to make this discussion go away.

Again, the thread is to discuss whether a legitimate reason exists to question, in this case, NIST's forensic engineering practice. I don't consider the failure to meet an uninformed expectation to be a legitimate reason.

Then what's their theory? How hot does steel have to get in order to see this "Fire-Driven Cascade" thing?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It bears on how the data is to be interpreted and what conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from it. You are trying to foist your layman's understanding of forensic engineering onto the problem. This is why your conclusions differ markedly from those drawn by the relevant professionals regarding the 9/11 investigation.

Again, the thread is to discuss whether a legitimate reason exists to question, in this case, NIST's forensic engineering practice. I don't consider the failure to meet an uninformed expectation to be a legitimate reason.

Jay U, since we seem to be dealing with a classic example of it here, what's your opinion of Mackey's Irreducible Delusion model? Do you think there's a point at which any further engagement is futile, or do you never give up on trying to get through to someone who simply doesn't want to listen?

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

It sounds like you're inserting a whole new theory of collapse that doesn't depend on the sagging of the trusses. Is that correct? Where has this little gem been hiding all this time, and why wait until now to pull it out and show it?

Seriously, you just made this up. It's not in the NIST report. In essence, you are submitting that the NIST theory as it is vaguely laid out in the report, doesn't work the way NIST described it. Basically, you're saying "sure, the trusses didn't sag as much as NIST said they did, but that's not important. What's important is that a lot of forces were acting in chaotic ways which we cannot understand--only to say that you're wrong."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this alternative theory you just proposed to save the underlying premise of official narrative, (i.e., that heat-driven cascade events proceeded from office fires), is one for which you cannot put your finger on the initial joint (or joint complex) that failed, nor do you know how hot it would need to be nor for how long, but that's what definitely happened.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, please fill in the blanks on this new attempt to describe what happened.

Do you propose to know how hot it got for this FDCM to proceed? Or at what location(s)?

Collapse initiation may have been caused by sagging floors pulling on perimeter AS THE AXIAL LOADS on those perimeter columns increased. Inward bowing is a consequence of BOTH floor sag AND increased load.

The floor tests were done on as built floors to test if they behaved as designed to as per fire code. Why is it that you have so much trouble digesting that?

THEN , once collapse had initiated, collapse progression was a consequence of massive overload of floors that stripped away all lateral support to perimeter and core columns. *** IOW, the fire had nothing more to do with collapse once it began*** In fact the impact damage also had nothing more to do with collapse once it began.
Do you understand that?

 

[JayUtah]

The only answer possible is: "IT DOESN'T".

No, the other answer possible is, "You don't understand the test." And that's the answer the unanimous voice of the industry has raised.

Your reliance on intent is just another attempt to make this discussion go away.

The discussion is already gone away. It has no visibility outside inconsequential web forums. It went away ten years ago when your colleagues attempted to raise exactly the same issue and were faced with exactly the same corrections from the industry.

You're right: no one accepts your conclusion. No matter how desperately you don't want the reason for that to be your layman's misconception, it doesn't change the facts. Your ideas don't fail to achieve eminence because of some small group of anonymous commentators shilling for NIST in the internet backwaters. Your ideas fail to achieve eminence because they are mistaken. Stop blaming everyone else for that.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay U, since we seem to be dealing with a classic example of it here, what's your opinion of Mackey's Irreducible Delusion model? Do you think there's a point at which any further engagement is futile, or do you never give up on trying to get through to someone who simply doesn't want to listen?

Dave

Since all we're getting is a screed of repeated original assertions, I don't know whether any further discussion is fruitful. Repeating one's original claims doesn't suddenly make the existing rebuttals go away, or require new ones. Engagement with well-entrenched litigants rarely has the effect of changing the proponent's mind. But it usually has a beneficial effect in presenting to a reader both sides of the story. At a certain point you have to have faith that the reader can see what has been discussed already and not need you to repeat your points.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Since the inward bowing of the exterior columns was also an observation, and occurred progressively minutes prior to the initiation of final collapse, your hypothesis suggests that the core failed gradually up until the point where the structure became unstable; in other words, you have advanced quite a strong argument against a controlled collapse initiation.

Dave

The NIST model could not produce the inward bowing of the exterior columns with sagging trusses. What do you think caused it?

 

[pgimeno]

"didn't you see that youtube video? That's a case-closer!"

Not sure who said that, but that sounds like standard truther MO.

For instance, how do you reconcile the floor truss burn tests? An as-built steel structure, loaded to the max, heated far longer and far hotter than any structure in the towers could have gotten by hydrocarbon fires, and shows 3 inches of sag and some cracked concrete. Where is this FDCM?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your defense says "the scientists didn't intend that test to verify their theory. Therefore, the results do not inform the collapse theory."

And I say: So what? How does the intention of the scientist change the facts of the outcome or the parameters in any way? It doesn't.

False. It makes a lot of difference in the setup, because it does not resemble the conditions of the fires in the towers. You've been told time and again that the tests were made with the insulation in place.

You know what does uneven heating do to materials, especially metals like steel, right? With the insulation in place, the heating is more gradual, giving time for the heat to travel from one end of e.g. the truss' wire to the other. Without insulation, or with partial insulation, heating is more uneven, and causes far worse sagging.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The NIST model could not produce the inward bowing of the exterior columns with sagging trusses. What do you think caused it?

You're missing the point. If you're right about core failure causing the bowing, then it's an argument against CD.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're missing the point. If you're right about core failure causing the bowing, then it's an argument against CD.

Dave

No, you said it couldn't have been the core as you also said the exterior was bowed inward for minutes before the collapse. The NIST model couldn't produce the inward bowing with sagging trusses.

I am asking you to try and be coherent now and tell us what you think caused the inward bowing if you don't think it was the core and NIST couldn't produce it with sagging trusses.

 

[DGM]

Since the inward bowing of the exterior columns was also an observation, and occurred progressively minutes prior to the initiation of final collapse, your hypothesis suggests that the core failed gradually up until the point where the structure became unstable; in other words, you have advanced quite a strong argument against a controlled collapse initiation.

Dave

Not to mention what it would do to his "missing jolt" paper.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, you said it couldn't have been the core as you also said the exterior was bowed inward for minutes before the collapse.

At no point did I say that. Your denial of reality seems to have progressed to the point where you can't even read the words in front of you.

Dave