Why did NIST only test 1% of the Twin Tower beams for temperature effects?

[Tony Szamboti]

It is troubling that NIST, by their own admission, only tested approximately 1% of the Twin Tower beams, from the fire affected areas, for high temperature effects. Since the beams were identifiable, from their stamped on numbers, one could determine their location in the buildings and have salvaged all of the steel from the fire affected areas. This would have allowed NIST to do a much more thorough evaluation of the physical evidence in the fire affected areas and collapse zones. I am wondering who made the decision to only salvage the small amount given to NIST and what the decision might have been based on.

 

[Rrramon]

Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap -- said his findings confirm the widely held theory about the buildings' demise: that the impact of the planes did relatively little damage to the Towers. Rather, it was 1,000-plus-degree heat from the burning jet fuel that caused key outer beams to buckle, and floor after floor to fall.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

 

[Quad4_72]

What exactly are your credentials when it comes to analyzing steel? You speak as if you are an expert.

 

[Rob Lister]

It is troubling that NIST, by their own admission, only tested approximately 1% of the Twin Tower beams,...

I don't find it troubling.

 

[StoneWT]

real "controlled demolition" deal

This is merely another troll.

 

[Gravy]

In the NIST report, you'll read that they were unable to find enough core columns from the impact and fire floors that had sufficient remaining paint to allow assessment of the fire progression, which was the purpose of the "paint cracking" analysis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am a mechanical engineer.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In the NIST report, you'll read that they were unable to find enough core columns from the impact and fire floors that had sufficient remaining paint to allow assessment of the fire progression, which was the purpose of the "paint cracking" analysis.

They also did spheroidization testing which did not require paint.

 

[Totovader]

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

Nice find. Bookmarked.

I often cite this article, which corroborates that figure:

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law-foreign-investment-finance/906599-3.html

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, was one of the first experts to examine the rubble at Ground Zero in New York. The professor said he visually inspected about 40,000 tons of steel from the towers from September to December. Ile echoed FEMA's conclusions.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I am a mechanical engineer.

Can you provide some verifiable evidence of this, or do we take your word on it? Further, are you a GOOD one? Seems they did a pretty good job of this on their own.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you provide some verifiable evidence of this, or do we take your word on it? Further, are you a GOOD one? Seems they did a pretty good job of this on their own.

How would you propose that I provide verifiable evidence?

I can tell you that I have a degree in mechanical engineering from a major University and have been doing structural design work to withstand static, quasi-static, and dynamic loads in the antenna and aerospace industries for 17 years. I have also done a fair amount of heat transfer analyses in my engineering career.

None of my designs have had any premature failures. You have probably flown in an aircraft that I have designed parts for, watched television, and talked on cell phones that have something to do with work I have done for severe environments. Does that qualify me?

 

[R.Mackey]

This is handled in detail in NIST NCSTAR1-3.

NIST was looking for steel that showed, primarily, evidence of aircraft impact, and secondarily nearby steel that would help them understand the progression to failure. The overwhelming majority of steel was nowhere near the impact, and was broken apart by the collapse, or damaged by fires in the Pile, offering nothing of interest.

On top of that, only steel that could be uniquely identified was of any value. It does no good to find an interesting column if you can't tell where it came from. Fortunately, the steel was all stamped or otherwise marked with unique identifiers. However, some of the steel was so badly damaged that these markings were lost. This is why only some pieces from the impact floors could be found.

Hardly a surprise, really.

 

[capracus]

It is troubling that NIST, by their own admission, only tested approximately 1% of the Twin Tower beams, from the fire affected areas, for high temperature effects. Since the beams were identifiable, from their stamped on numbers, one could determine their location in the buildings and have salvaged all of the steel from the fire affected areas. This would have allowed NIST to do a much more thorough evaluation of the physical evidence in the fire affected areas and collapse zones. I am wondering who made the decision to only salvage the small amount given to NIST and what the decision might have been based on.

Are you referring to columns or beams? Nist actually had access to about 10% of the columns from the impact zones. I have never come across a clear reason of why the number was so low. Some engineers like Gene Corley determined that the steel collection was adequate for analysis, while others such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl would have liked more.

 

[beachnut]

It is troubling that NIST, by their own admission, only tested approximately 1% of the Twin Tower beams, from the fire affected areas, for high temperature effects. Since the beams were identifiable, from their stamped on numbers, one could determine their location in the buildings and have salvaged all of the steel from the fire affected areas. This would have allowed NIST to do a much more thorough evaluation of the physical evidence in the fire affected areas and collapse zones. I am wondering who made the decision to only salvage the small amount given to NIST and what the decision might have been based on.

What difference would it make? Is this a new attack to prove explosives were used?

I bet that is all the steel they had access to. But then you are leaving out the hundreds of engineers and scientists who had access to the steel right after 9/11 to study stuff to make improvements to buildings and such. If you are a practicing engineer, you are in the best position to find journals and studies your business can buy or acquire through libraries and find information on the WTC studies, that must number in the hundreds that only money and being in the practice of engineering would bring you in contact with. I envy those in academic or in a business/professional situation where the ability to have access to the information is so great

So what have you learned about 9/11 that would make this 1 percent thing an issue to change the way we look at 19 terrorists running planes into buildings and fires weakening steel and building structures to cause failure and collapse. What new twist do you have that makes this an issue?

 

[Myriad]

It is troubling that NIST, by their own admission, only tested approximately 1% of the Twin Tower beams, from the fire affected areas, for high temperature effects. Since the beams were identifiable, from their stamped on numbers, one could determine their location in the buildings and have salvaged all of the steel from the fire affected areas. This would have allowed NIST to do a much more thorough evaluation of the physical evidence in the fire affected areas and collapse zones. I am wondering who made the decision to only salvage the small amount given to NIST and what the decision might have been based on.

Can you be more specific about why you find this troubling?

If additonal samples were tested, and found that some did not show the same high temperature effects as others, how would NIST's conclusion that thermal weakening of some structural members contributed to the collapse be affected?

If additonal samples were tested, and found that some had reached even higher temperatures than the ones originally tested, how would NIST's conclusion that thermal weakening of some structural members contributed to the collapse be affected?

Your choice of screen name suggests that you believe that controlled demolition was used to cause the towers to collapse. (If I'm wrong about this, I apologize, but in the context of this forum it's a reasonable interpretation.) If that is the case, then you believe that NIST was either incompetent (to have missed the obvious distinctive damage, debris, and residues that demolition charges or thermite would have resulted in) or corrupt enough to deliberately cover these findings up. In either case, how would the testing of more samples by incompetent and/or corrupt investigators have made any difference?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Pardalis]

I am wondering who made the decision to only salvage the small amount given to NIST

Someone in the NWO of course.

and what the decision might have been based on.

The NWO agenda to prevent people from finding out the Truth of course.

 

[Gravy]

I am a mechanical engineer.

Shaving Cream, Alka-Seltzer, Fuzzballs, Fuzzy Bombs, Dirt Balls, Cheeetos, Tree Leaves, Nano-Dust, Donuts, Attack Clouds, Poofing, Wheatchex, Toasted Street

 

[WildCat]

Shaving Cream, Alka-Seltzer, Fuzzballs, Fuzzy Bombs, Dirt Balls, Cheeetos, Tree Leaves, Nano-Dust, Donuts, Attack Clouds, Poofing, Wheatchex, Toasted Street

Whawhahwha... holy crap Judy Wood has gone completely bat guano insane!

 

[Architect]

How would you propose that I provide verifiable evidence?

I can tell you that I have a degree in mechanical engineering from a major University and have been doing structural design work to withstand static, quasi-static, and dynamic loads in the antenna and aerospace industries for 17 years. I have also done a fair amount of heat transfer analyses in my engineering career.

None of my designs have had any premature failures. You have probably flown in an aircraft that I have designed parts for, watched television, and talked on cell phones that have something to do with work I have done for severe environments. Does that qualify me?

RealDCDeal

Hello, and welcome to the forum.

For what it is worth, I am a qualified architect specialising in tall buildings work in the UK. I've done a fair amount of design in the 15 year architectural career and expect to do more. A fair number of our UK readers will know buildings which I've been part of the team on.

But enough of the peeing competition.

Let's look at your OP in a but more detail;

- What proportion of structural steelwork within the building would have been exposed to the fires which we're interested in? 1%? Less? Is the 1% figure any more than a soundbite, or does it tell us anything of interest?

- Of the steelwork which was exposed to fire, how much was recovered and could be accurately identified as coming from the affected areas? Likewise what proportion of such material provided a meaningful opportunity for analysis?

- How was recovered steel assessed for analysis? Did this involve a preliminary inspection of all samples, with follow-up work on the most promising? Was it merely a random selection? What were the selection criteria and who carried it out?

Once we have the answers to these - and I seem to recall that it is available from NIST reports and other material - then we will be in a position to consider whether there is anything which should trouble us. But in the meantime the 1% figure is about as helpful as suggesting that a car might be dangerous because it is only serviced 1/365th of the year.

 

[Mince]

How would you propose that I provide verifiable evidence?

I can tell you that I have a degree in mechanical engineering from a major University and have been doing structural design work to withstand static, quasi-static, and dynamic loads in the antenna and aerospace industries for 17 years.

I can also tell you that. It's not true however.