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

[Tony Szamboti]

I find it hard to believe that most of you guys read the NIST report. The chapter pertinent to this discussion is NISTNCSTAR1-3 Chapter 6. In it you will see that only 3% of the perimeter columns tested had temperatures which exceeded 250 degrees C and none of the core columns.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have, thank you. Please read the balance of NIST NCSTAR1-3, where it is revealed that those were the only two core columns recoverable from that area which could be tested in such a fashion. The fact that these two columns didn't reach 250 ^oC in no way implies that other columns couldn't have.

You are, in essence, attempting to cherry-pick the data. There just wasn't much evidence that survived from the impact floors in good enough condition to trace where it came from.

And what form of destruction do you propose to say these beams didn't survive in good enough condition to do microstructure tests on?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OMG, the WTC towers are still standing? What is your real story on the demise of the WTC, and how many of these silent charges were used. You know you are supporting a view only a few engineer in the entire world support. I think they are nuts, what do you think? And what is your single integrated story for CD?

You have to tell me what school you went to, to get your MSME. I have to know in case you are right so I know the only school in the whole world that teaches people how to see the truth when 99.9 percent of all engineer have missed the same.

I am just looking at the data. You seem to be spending more time calling people names.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And what form of destruction do you propose to say these beams didn't survive in good enough condition to do microstructure tests on?

The way I read NISTNCSTAR1-3 they say they could read most of the stampings. Most usually doesn't imply just 1%.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have, thank you. Please read the balance of NIST NCSTAR1-3, where it is revealed that those were the only two core columns recoverable from that area which could be tested in such a fashion. The fact that these two columns didn't reach 250 ^oC in no way implies that other columns couldn't have.

You are, in essence, attempting to cherry-pick the data. There just wasn't much evidence that survived from the impact floors in good enough condition to trace where it came from.

NISTNCSTAR1-3 says they could read most of the stampings on the beams. Most usually doesn't mean just 1%.

 

[R.Mackey]

And what form of destruction do you propose to say these beams didn't survive in good enough condition to do microstructure tests on?

I have no idea what you're getting at. If the beams (we're talking columns here in NIST NCSTAR1-3 6.6.2, actually) cannot be uniquely identified, then the test is moot. I already explained this to you.

The columns in the impact area suffered quite a lot of destruction, as should be self-evident.

Most of the pieces that could be identified were not in the impact and fire area. Naturally, those pieces suffered more damage. I fail to see what's so hard to understand about this.

The 1% means pieces of interest, and those of interest are nowhere near the entire structure. Nobody cares what steel on the 7th Floor experienced. I explained this on the first page.

 

[Gravy]

Fourth time, realcd: are you going to contact the people who can answer your question? You have twice agreed that you should do so.

Will you begin that process now? Yes or no?

Second time: should the U.S. government have mounted an extensive investigation into the Space Shuttle conspiracy claims?

Second time: what would your physical model and tests comprise?

And I was correct that you lied about being a mechanical engineer, wasn't I?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence for the fire weakening theory and it just isn't solid enough to convince the public. There needs to be another investigation of what went on at the Twin Towers.

It isn't conspiracy theory to say the case just simply hasn't been made and go back and do it again. This happens all the time in law enforcement. The conspiracy theories start when there is stonewalling and an attempt to truss up a weak theory.

 

[Thunder]

"Isn't solid evidence to convince the public"??????

the public IS convinced!!. You are not the public. You are a conspiracy theorist who hates his government and all associated with it. Please do not LIE and claim to speak for the American people...who think you are on crack.


Why would this guy contact the people who can actually answer his question? That would be way too productive and it would sabotage his goals. The point of Truthers asking questions...is NOT to get answers. Their mission is to spread THEIR beliefs of what happened..irrespective of the facts or the real TRUTH. They have made up their minds, and their mantra of "just asking questions" is a lie.

They have made up their minds, they know what they believe, and their questions are just a show..to APPEAR like they really want answers.

If they wanted real answers, they would ask the people involved, not people at JREF.

 

[rwguinn]

Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence for the fire weakening theory and it just isn't solid enough to convince the public. There needs to be another investigation of what went on at the Twin Towers.

It isn't conspiracy theory to say the case just simply hasn't been made and go back and do it again. This happens all the time in law enforcement. The conspiracy theories start when there is stonewalling and an attempt to truss up a weak theory.

This guy is no engineer. His ideas are way too silly, and even more illogical than those of the guy I knew in college who was working on his perpetual motion machine in one of the ME labs.

 

[Gravy]

Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence for the fire weakening theory and it just isn't solid enough to convince the public. There needs to be another investigation of what went on at the Twin Towers.

It isn't conspiracy theory to say the case just simply hasn't been made and go back and do it again. This happens all the time in law enforcement. The conspiracy theories start when there is stonewalling and an attempt to truss up a weak theory.

If there's all this non-investigating going on, why did NIST reject FEMA's pancaking theory, and why is WTC 7 still under investigation? These criminal engineers could have finished that report years ago, right?

And please answer my other questions. They aren't going away.

 

[boloboffin]

Please reread NISTNCSTAR1-3 chapter 6.6.2

They only tested two core columns from the fire affected areas and neither had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C.

What should an an engineer infer from this data?

Petgoat!

Ok, maybe you're not Petgoat. I don't think Petgoat would be so foolish to make such a claim here, after I'd been over this with him over and over again at DU.

What you are saying is subtly different from what the NIST report said. You make it sound like they stopped testing after two.

If you had read the report, you would not say this. You would already know that only two pieces of core column NIST recovered had enough paint to do this test. I wonder why the other pieces of core column didn't have enough paint to test, hmm?

Also, if you had read the report, you would know that the other test showed pieces that got much hotter. They got nothing over 600 degrees, but again, NIST's primary purpose in collecting the steel was NOT examining it for damage. You would know this if you had read the report. The primary purpose, the main purpose, was to test the steel to make sure it was built to code. The amount and breadth of steel recovered was adequate enough to generalize that this was the case for the WTC steel.

The damage analyses can't be generalized the way you wish to do. There wasn't enough collected to do this. However, there was enough steel collected to show that the steel was being built to code (in fact, the general trend is that the steel exceeded code). You would know this if you had read the report.

 

[David Wong]

I love this repeated technique of focusing in on one obscure issue (testing of steel) while ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. Specifically, no sound of dozens of detonations (that would have been heard by EVERYONE at the scene, and would be unmistakeable), that it would have been physically impossible to wire the building undetected, the complete lack of any unexploded charges or wiring or EVEN ONE SINGLE MOLECULE OF EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

He's found a shadow on the ground and declared that there is no sun.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I find it hard to believe that most of you guys read the NIST report. The chapter pertinent to this discussion is NISTNCSTAR1-3 Chapter 6. In it you will see that only 3% of the perimeter columns tested had temperatures which exceeded 250 degrees C and none of the core columns.

You are going to be very happy - extremely happy in fact - because there are so many gritty details to the WTC collapses that can never be completely explained regardless of the number of experts thrown at the problem - or their level of honesty and credibility. The Builder of Black Holes couldn't definitively answer every detail.

And that's where you get to live in CT world. Just like JFK, which you conveniently brought up a bit ago. Identical mechanism. Arlan Specter didn't get to see the complete autopsy pics: THE CIA OFFED KENNEDY WITH OSWALD DOING AN IMPRESSION OF "PATSY" KLINE!!!11!one!11

You are missing the overall, a common malady of CTs. Wanna see? Explain why WTC2 fell first, and differently, than did WTC1.

Explain why, if this was CD, you'd need jetliners at all.

Explain why, if this was CD, not a single person in the most populous city of the 3rd most populous nation on the planet - and downtown, no less - saw anybody planting explosives, the actual explosives in place, the detonators and triggering devices, the detonation wiring and all the other CD paraphernalia.

Or you can go back to your "but this beam was only at 250 degrees Celsius see See SEE!!!" if it suits your needs.

 

[R.Mackey]

Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence for the fire weakening theory and it just isn't solid enough to convince the public. There needs to be another investigation of what went on at the Twin Towers.

It isn't conspiracy theory to say the case just simply hasn't been made and go back and do it again. This happens all the time in law enforcement. The conspiracy theories start when there is stonewalling and an attempt to truss up a weak theory.

So what would it take for you to agree with the NIST theory? Be specific and show your calculations.

 

[beachnut]

Please reread NISTNCSTAR1-3 chapter 6.6.2

They only tested two core columns from the fire affected areas and neither had experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C.

What should an an engineer infer from this data?

NIST goals were?! And I copy, 1. Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel. 2. Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and 3. Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance.

I am now wondering why you even bring up NIST stuff since their goal is not your goal. They were not out to prove your ideas of CD were wrong they were just working on their goals. And how did they do? Did you read their conclusions and understand them? I do not need NIST to understand the WTC failed due to impact and fire. The lack of the real sounds of CD make your CD theory fiction. In addition, any explosives on the floors at the impact area and above would have cooked off in the fire. The fire was severe, if you can prove it was not you would have a Pulitzer Prize, where is it?

Not one single mention of CD, or what ever ideas you have. Since the biggest goal of NIST was to study and make sure the WTC met standards, why are you upset and bent on proving CD with witness statements of explosions which were actually the sounds associated with 9/11 events, not CD/RDX, explosives. Why are you unable to hear the sounds of CD on 9/11? Because there was no CD on 9/11. Just terrorist buddy, terrorist and planes used in a unique fashion.

You need a refund if you are an engineer, you school left out some critical thinking skill in the curriculum. Refund time. If I was as challenged as some of the truther engineers I would sue for my tuition refund now!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Fourth time, realcd: are you going to contact the people who can answer your question? You have twice agreed that you should do so.

Will you begin that process now? Yes or no?

Second time: should the U.S. government have mounted an extensive investigation into the Space Shuttle conspiracy claims?

Second time: what would your physical model and tests comprise?

And I was correct that you lied about being a mechanical engineer, wasn't I?

Sorry if I don't answer fast enough for you there Gravy but it seems this thread has generated a lot of interest.

First, I am a mechanical engineer and you are the one who would not be telling the truth by saying I wasn't.

As far as contacting people who were involved in the investigation I said I will and I mean that. I think it is a little impatient of you to presume I haven't done it fast enough as I just agreed to it this evening.

Any conspiracy claims about the space shuttle were minor compared to 911 and the assassinations of the 1960's. I don't believe there was any possible conspiracies concerning the space shuttle accidents and I think anything that needed investigation in those instances was investigated.

Finally, any testing I devised to prove the present government fire induced failure theory would involve scale models of the towers with the calculated impact damage and fires. I would be doing a lot more than floor truss assembly testing. The scale models would also test the heat transfer capability of the central core column network and really help to see just what temperatures were possible there.

 

[rwguinn]

So what would it take for you to agree with the NIST theory? Be specific and show your calculations.

And sadly, folks, we now see that the twoofers have driven R.Mackey into total disconect from reality. Only someone who has moved into madness would expect a CTer to actually attempt any kind of calculation that5 did not involve $$ and audiences...

 

[David Wong]

Finally, any testing I devised to prove the present government fire induced failure theory would involve scale models of the towers with the calculated impact damage and fires.

Not an engineer.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST goals were?! And I copy, 1. Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel. 2. Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and 3. Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance.

I am now wondering why you even bring up NIST stuff since their goal is not your goal. They were not out to prove your ideas of CD were wrong they were just working on their goals. And how did they do? Did you read their conclusions and understand them? I do not need NIST to understand the WTC failed due to impact and fire. The lack of the real sounds of CD make your CD theory fiction. In addition, any explosives on the floors at the impact area and above would have cooked off in the fire. The fire was severe, if you can prove it was not you would have a Pulitzer Prize, where is it?

Not one single mention of CD, or what ever ideas you have. Since the biggest goal of NIST was to study and make sure the WTC met standards, why are you upset and bent on proving CD with witness statements of explosions which were actually the sounds associated with 9/11 events, not CD/RDX, explosives. Why are you unable to hear the sounds of CD on 9/11? Because there was no CD on 9/11. Just terrorist buddy, terrorist and planes used in a unique fashion.

You need a refund if you are an engineer, you school left out some critical thinking skill in the curriculum. Refund time. If I was as challenged as some of the truther engineers I would sue for my tuition refund now!

You seem to have left out one of NIST's stated goals there Beachnut. The number 3 goal they stated was "to determine if pre-collapse fires significantly affected the mechanical properties of the structural elements such that the structural integrity (load bearing capapbilities) of the component may have been compromised".

Your number 3 was their number 4. You left out the real number 3.