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

[Furcifer]

Is this a case where NIST inspected 1% of all the steel which represented 75% of the steel they wanted to inspect? Then they came out and said "I wish we had more to inspect", and the CT latch on to the "1%" and the "I wish we had more" totally neglecting that they meant ie. "I wish we had more than 75%, ideally 100% would have been nice"

 

[kookbreaker]

If additional samples had high temperature evidence then the case for fire weakening would be very solid.

What test would determine this, while at the same time allowing for markings indicating its orignal position?

 

[R.Mackey]

There is other evidence for high temperatures, completely apart from any steel analysis, you know.

Additionally, there would have been additional signatures from explosives that simply did not occur, not to mention no possible way for explosives -- even ignoring those missing signatures -- to have created the fault modes seen.

Even if the NIST report was dead wrong, explosives would be the last hypothesis one would adopt.

 

[Totovader]

i call

Seconded.

"I've read the NIST report- just not the part that actually specifically answers my questions. I'm also an expert, but am unable to really give any specific indication that I have the expertise that I claim."

Difference being:

"Hey I don't know the answer to this"
"Oh, it's right here."
"Thanks, I'll look into that... Oh yep, makes sense."

And someone like R. Mackey is believable as being an expert because he is clearly able to demonstrate an advanced understanding of the concepts required.

This isn't to say that experts are absolutely necessary- but as has been the case far too many times, conspiracists pretend to have the expertise as a way of excluding themselves from providing evidence, or even a logically consistent claim.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Apologies; you appear to misunderstand. I was posing the questions which I believed you, as an engineer with experience in this field, would wish to pose before arriving at an initial view as to the adequacy (or otherwise) of the testing regime.

Let's look at Mackey's reference:



Now this would suggest to me that there was a reasonably thorough (and I use that in the legal rather than ordinary sense) assessment of all recovered steel in order to narrow the sample set down to those which were most likely to offer meaningful results.

Thoughts/comments?

I think the NIST comment that they only tested 1% of the steel and therefore could not depend on that for conclusions says it all. I cannot help but be highly suspicious of political forces here if they actually sorted through a lot of the steel and then only tested 1% of it. What is going on?

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, you are right I should go ask the question of those who might actually have the answer.

I'm sure we'll be interested in what responses (if any) you get. The NIST and FEMA reports list the investigation leaders and their places of employment (as of 2005, in NIST's case). I know that many of them can be contacted at the listed companies.

Let us know what you hear. It's an interesting question that I believe is addressed in the NIST report, but perhaps you can glean more details.

 

[stateofgrace]

Maybe this is rather a silly question but how much steel would you have liked to have been tested?

Is there a percentage that fore fills a predetermined criteria?

Just from the stand point of two planes been flown at high speed into two tall buildings, which then suffer massive fires and collapse, why would you wish to even consider the possibility of testing and analysing every single piece of steel that came from the WTC?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There is other evidence for high temperatures, completely apart from any steel analysis, you know.

Additionally, there would have been additional signatures from explosives that simply did not occur, not to mention no possible way for explosives -- even ignoring those missing signatures -- to have created the fault modes seen.

Even if the NIST report was dead wrong, explosives would be the last hypothesis one would adopt.

What other physical evidence for high temperatures is there?

Don't you think there should have been testing for explosives in light of the comments from many of the firefighters? Even if it was the last thing it should have been part of the investigation and would certainly have quelled any possible conspiracy theories.

 

[A W Smith]

I think the NIST comment that they only tested 1% of the steel and therefore could not depend on that for conclusions says it all. I cannot help but be highly suspicious of political forces here if they actually sorted through a lot of the steel and then only tested 1% of it. What is going on?

are you suggesting that they should have tested ALL the steel even that with no heat signature on it? again I ask. what percentage of the steel in the towers by weight do YOU estimate was effected by heat?

 

[Totovader]

I think the NIST comment that they only tested 1% of the steel and therefore could not depend on that for conclusions says it all. I cannot help but be highly suspicious of political forces here if they actually sorted through a lot of the steel and then only tested 1% of it. What is going on?

This has been explained. How is the explanation insufficient, or even suspect?

Furthermore, how does this cause you to draw a conclusion of CD? If there's little evidence (in this ONE section of research) for the fire temps- yet it is still supported and by far the most likely (philosophically speaking, scientifically- it's a slam dunk)- then there's NO evidence whatsoever for CD, yet you believe it?

Smells fishy.

(Note: the claim that there is "suspicious" or [by itself] "insufficient" testing- which therefore leads to CD is a fallacy known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.)

 

[R.Mackey]

And someone like R. Mackey is believable as being an expert because he is clearly able to demonstrate an advanced understanding of the concepts required.

This isn't to say that experts are absolutely necessary- but as has been the case far too many times, conspiracists pretend to have the expertise as a way of excluding themselves from providing evidence, or even a logically consistent claim.

For what it's worth, the Loose Change regulars once "investigated" me, in a thread I wasn't even aware of, and were able to immediately verify that my claims of my background are true. This was in response to our old friend 28^th Kindgom suggesting that I was just another keyboard warrior.

Having said that, I never wish to argue from authority. If I say something that's inaccurate (and I certainly may!), please call me on it. This should be a learning experience for me, too.

 

[Gravy]

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

For the record, I didn't post that as a slight to mechanical engineers. I just wanted to point out that people from all walks of life are subject to irrational beliefs and mental illness.

 

[R.Mackey]

What other physical evidence for high temperatures is there?

It is legion. In particular, the progression of windows broken by the fire as it progressed, which was captured in video and stills. This is irrefutable evidence. It may not tell you whether the fire was at 800 ^oC or 1000 ^oC -- like any other measurement, it is subject to uncertainty -- but there can be no doubt of high temperatures. Coupled with the photographs of missing insulation, it is a certainty that some steel reached those temperatures.

The primary reason for the steel search was not to verify high temperatures, though it is partially related. Do you know what it was?

Don't you think there should have been testing for explosives in light of the comments from many of the firefighters? Even if it was the last thing it should have been part of the investigation and would certainly have quelled any possible conspiracy theories.

No. Those quotes have been examined here to death. Absolutely no one saw anything remotely consistent with explosives.

Also, the NIST report did not exist to quell conspiracy theories. That is an impossible task. It existed to find out what really happened, and in that respect it offers the best, and to my knowledge only credible, hypothesis.

 

[rwguinn]

Shouldn't engineers have license #'s? I believe that some ehre have offered up theirs as evidence. The proof, however, comes with the demonstration of knowledge.

Only PE's (in the US) are licensed. License data are public records, with name, place of business, and personal data.
Don't give that up to just anyone. There are some crazys out there.

 

[kookbreaker]

What other physical evidence for high temperatures is there?

What sort of evidence would you expect?

Don't you think there should have been testing for explosives in light of the comments from many of the firefighters?

Given that the comments were taken out of context 99% of the time by 'theorists' there is little reason to test for explosives. Especially given that any demolition site shows massive amounts of evidence that explosives were in use.

Even if it was the last thing it should have been part of the investigation and would certainly have quelled any possible conspiracy theories.

NOTHING quells conspiray theories. They make things up out of wholecloth.

 

[DGM]

Realcd;
It would be in your best interest to lay your cards out. Most of the people on this board have seen way too many trolls and don't except them well. If you get to the point with no BS you will be received much better.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Anyone interested in 9/11 would never cite JFK stuff if they were going to be taken seriously. What does JFK have to do with 9/11, I believe NIST and FEMA did not work on any aspect of JFK. Your truthy-ness is showing.

I am slow, and I guess you are a truthy guy with a name like readcddeal. Right?

And you BIAS is showing!

 

[Gravy]

What other physical evidence for high temperatures is there?

Don't you think there should have been testing for explosives in light of the comments from many of the firefighters? Even if it was the last thing it should have been part of the investigation and would certainly have quelled any possible conspiracy theories.

No. Conspiracists take the firefighters' quotes out of context in order to imply something sinister. When put in context, in almost every case we know what the firefighters are describing. Conspiracists also fail to list the far greater percentage of witnesses who describe same events with no reference to explosions.

Further, NIST were looking specifically for unusual failure modes of steel in the collapse initiation zones, and particularly for steel that was affected by impact and blast. They did not find evidence of steel being severed by explosives anywhere. Nor was such evidence reported by anyone else who worked up on the recovery and cleanup, including the NYPD CSU, the FBI, and the hundreds of ironworkers who were intimately familiar with the steel. Nor is any such evidence apparent in the thousands of photographs taken on the scene. Nor was any evidence of explosives or explosive devices found by the hundreds of NYPD detectives and FBI agents who sorted the debris at Fresh Kills. Nor does any seismic evidence support Cd claims.

So, that's a big zippo for the CD proponents.

You will no doubt be interested in this paper if you haven't already read it:

May, 2007: Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What caused it and what didn't (refutation of controlled demolition theory) Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And your BIAS is showing!

 

[Architect]

Real

I appreciate that you're fielding several posters here, but might you be in a position to respond to mine?