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

[rwguinn]

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?

[Stick hand in air and wave it madly] ooh! ohh! I do, teach! I do! Ask me!

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

Translation for the critical thinking deficient: There are other tell-tales than chemical signatures for use of 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.

Hear, Hear!

 

[kookbreaker]

And the meltdown begins...

 

[Pardalis]

And your BIAS is showing!

And I'm sure the "cd" part of your username doesn't have anything to do with "controlled demolition"?

 

[Gravy]

NOTHING quells conspiray theories.

Not even the JREF forum Inquisition!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

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

I have read Dr. Bazant's paper. I don't have a problem with the amount of potential energy in the upper stories of the towers to cause a collapse of some sort at least. My problem is that the lack of high temperature evidence is puzzling for the fire weakening theory to have caused the collapse. I believe that there should have been testing for explosive residue. I am not saying the government did it or anything like that at this point. In fact, who says terrorists couldn't have infiltrated the tower security? I am saying that I am having a hard time with the fire weakening theory.

 

[R.Mackey]

[Stick hand in air and wave it madly] ooh! ohh! I do, teach! I do! Ask me!

Yes, Gravy, you got the last one... let rwguinn have his turn.

 

[Gravy]

Okay, realCD, you've made your beliefs clear.

Now what are you going to do about them? This seems to be a pressing issue for you. Will you contact the people who made the decisions? Will you start that process right now?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And I'm sure the "cd" part of your username doesn't have anything to do with "controlled demolition"?

Of course it does. I am saying I want to know whether we can completely rule out controlled demolition based on the evidence we have. I don't believe we can and I think our government should investigate it.

In other words "what's the real deal on controlled demolition".

 

[A W Smith]

Real, Could you answer architects question please?

I have read Dr. Bazant's paper. I don't have a problem with the amount of potential energy in the upper stories of the towers to cause a collapse of some sort at least. My problem is that the lack of high temperature evidence is puzzling for the fire weakening theory to have caused the collapse. I believe that there should have been testing for explosive residue. I am not saying the government did it or anything like that at this point. In fact, who says terrorists couldn't have infiltrated the tower security? I am saying that I am having a hard time with the fire weakening theory.

Could you answer this?

Real

Can I just ask a simple question? No tricks, no fancy traps:

Do you accept that unprotected structural steelwork is susceptible to failure from normal fire loadings?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am saying I want to know whether we can completely rule out IPU's based on the evidence we have. I don't believe we can, and I think our government should investigate them.

In other words "what's the real deal on Invisible Pink Unicorns?"

 

[Pardalis]

My problem is that the lack of high temperature evidence is puzzling for the fire weakening theory to have caused the collapse. I believe that there should have been testing for explosive residue.

snip

who says terrorists couldn't have infiltrated the tower security?

Are you suggesting that terrorists climbed up the stairs while everybody was evacuating the towers and planted explosives in the impact zone?

I'm saying this because you said you read the NIST report, and the NIST report is pretty clear that the collapse started from the impact floors.

 

[Mobyseven]

I have read Dr. Bazant's paper. I don't have a problem with the amount of potential energy in the upper stories of the towers to cause a collapse of some sort at least. My problem is that the lack of high temperature evidence is puzzling for the fire weakening theory to have caused the collapse. I believe that there should have been testing for explosive residue. I am not saying the government did it or anything like that at this point. In fact, who says terrorists couldn't have infiltrated the tower security? I am saying that I am having a hard time with the fire weakening theory.

Just to be clear, do you really think it is possible that terrorists covertly planted an inordinately large quantity of explosives in the Twin Towers in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11? If explosives were planted by the terrorists, would that not suggest that NIST received all of material that they could realistically hope for, as no one would be trying to cover up their involvement? And how is it that the FBI found absolutely no evidence for this in the subsequent criminal investigation?

 

[kookbreaker]

Please tell me:

How much burnt detcord was found at Ground Zero?
How many employees at the WTC towers complained of people ripping open office walls to put stuff on the structural columns?
How many pieces of column showed the very distinct signs of having been cut via explosives?
How many pieces of copper banding, used to hold charges and very distinct in the aftermath of a CD were found?
How did such charges survive the fire?
How did the detcord survive the fire?
How did the charges survive the impact of the plane?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Real

Can I just ask a simple question? No tricks, no fancy traps:

Do you accept that unprotected structural steelwork is susceptible to failure from normal fire loadings?

It is possible, since steel loses half of its strength at 600 degrees C then the needed temperatures to weaken steel can and do exist in a fire. However, it is more complicated than that, as you most probably realize, since the size of the steel, size of the fire, the duration of heating, and any heat transfer to cooler areas will determine what temperatures the steel actually experiences. Air temperatures alone are not sufficient to determine what temperature the steel will experience. That is why it is disconcerting that the NIST engineers only had 1% of the steel to test and did not find much evidence of high temperatures in the steel. I believe only three beams out of the 170 tested had reached 600 degrees C and the remainder did not surpass 250 degrees C. I have to wonder why they had so little steel to test. Nobody would consider 1% a sufficient sample and NIST didn't either.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes, Gravy, you got the last one... let rwguinn have his turn.

Actually, I waiting fortherealthing to answer--we'll give him a bit of time.
A design/analyst engineer would have seen it quickly. A test engineer knew it from the start, and a fornesics expert--hell, anyone who even watches one of the CSI TV programs can get it from the hint: See the posting about marking and identificationof the steel inspected.

 

[Architect]

Real

I'm not talking about the World Trade Centre; the question is general.

Do you accept that steelwork generally is susceptible to failure within the range of normal fire loadings, if unprotected?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you suggesting that terrorists climbed up the stairs while everybody was evacuating the towers and planted explosives in the impact zone?

I'm saying this because you said you read the NIST report, and the NIST report is pretty clear that the collapse started from the impact floors.

Why would it have to be done that day? Who says the fires caused by the aircraft impacts could not have initiated a collapse of planted explosives in the impact zone and maybe pressure sensitive explosives were used below?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Real

I'm not talking about the World Trade Centre; the question is general.

Do you accept that steelwork generally is susceptible to failure within the range of normal fire loadings, if unprotected?

Yes, it is in the range of physical possibilities.

 

[Architect]

Yes, it is in the range of physical possibilities.

Okay.

Now, do you agree that this can happen in as little as 30 minutes, depending upon the intesity of the fire but still within the range of "normal" loadings?

 

[kookbreaker]

Why would it have to be done that day? Who says the fires caused by the aircraft impacts could not have initiated a collapse of planted explosives in the impact zone and maybe pressure sensitive explosives were used below?

Would you explain why there is no evidence of cutting charges on the support beams if this is the scenario you propose?