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

[kookbreaker]

Not an engineer.

Yup. That pretty much seals it. Another fake from the troother side. I think the sock claimers are on target. Bet he cut and pasted his qualifications from another board's member or such.

 

[beachnut]

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 do not even know the goal of the NIST report you have cited. And you say no one has read NIST. You must ask for and receive a refund on your degree now. What school is producing truther quality engineers? You are not really an engineer you just joked about it, right? Bet you fail to answer the simple questions you could. Bet?

Please tell me your school, so I can be sure not to donate until they work on their program. Fess up now, please.

 

[Gravy]

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.

And I say you aren't. You can prove me wrong and elicit my apology by forwarding your credentials to me at [email protected]. I promise not to share the information with anyone, but I will publlicly apologize for calling you a liar, which I'm certain you are. Hey, I could be wrong: Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer.

Prove it.

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.

You are simply expressing your opinion here. Sorry to be blunt, but I don't think that anyone here cares about your opinon. While you're attempting to debate people who weren't involved in the FEMA and NIST investigations, you could be having your questions answered by those who were involved. So get on with it. You've got work to do.

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.

The people who believe in those conspiracies disagree with you. So why should anyone believe your conspiracy theory? You've presented zero reason for us to believe that the engineers were corrupt, incompetent, or wrong.

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.

Scale models, with all masses scaled for all variables, and furnishings/live loads simulated, and aircraft impact mass, velocity, and structural and fireproofing damage simulated, and fuel dispersion and fire spread simulated, and progression of broken windows simulated, and atmospheric conditions simulated, with the ability to run multiple tests with changed variables to produce different cases?

When you have the time, I would really like to see you write a paper detailing how you would accomplish this. I know NIST would like that information. You'll make engineering history!

 

[beachnut]

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.

Nope, you messed up. You need to read it again. I got the simple goal stated exact, twice now. You know repetition, it is a factor of learning.

Three was "Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance. "

This is from the report you cited, now you are making up your own goals for NIST. What school was that?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

NIST needs to show test results which back up their theory. They simply do not have that right now. If they did physical tests, with accurate models, which showed the central core columns could have had temperatures which would induce the creep they suggest I would believe them.

What calculations would you want me to show?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have to go to work tomorrow fellows and it is after 11:00 PM here so it is good night for me for this session. Have a good night!

 

[David Wong]

NIST needs to show test results which back up their theory. They simply do not have that right now.

How do you account for the fact that basically every expert in the field disagrees with that statement?

 

[boloboffin]

Hey, readcddeal, what do you think about the observed bowing of the perimeter columns in both towers? Actual bowing columns, or simply hot sheets of air refracting the light there?

Maybe you think the buildings were wired for demolition. Who do you think they got to wire the buildings? Junkies and child molesters?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nope, you messed up. You need to read it again. I got the simple goal stated exact, twice now. You know repetition, it is a factor of learning.

Three was "Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance. "

This is from the report you cited, now you are making up your own goals for NIST. What school was that?

Where are you coming from? NIST states four goals in the beginning of NISTNCSTAR1-3 chapter 6 and YOU left one out. It just so happens to be the one that supports my argument. Anyone here can go and read it and see you are not right.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

How do you account for the fact that basically every expert in the field disagrees with that statement?

Why don't you name more than a handful of these experts you speak of there Dave and don't forget to show where they agree with it in writing?

 

[David Wong]

Why don't you name more than a handful of these experts you speak of there Dave and don't forget to show where they agree with it in writing?

So it's your opinion that only a handful of experts agree with NIST, and the rest believe thousands of explosives were secretly wired into the buidlings over the course of months, completely undetected, making almost no sound upon detonation, and leaving not a single molecule of evidence behind?

Really?




Really?

 

[beachnut]

Where are you coming from? NIST states four goals in the beginning of NISTNCSTAR1-3 chapter 6 and YOU left one out. It just so happens to be the one that supports my argument. Anyone here can go and read it and see you are not right.

I am reading it again now, it has three goals. I know this because they say "The goal of the study was threefold:". Now the school I went to said three meant 3, as in three, not four, but three. And I can even read, not bad for a simple engineer who flew jets for his country. But then maybe your school, which is a secret, taught you to read three as four. What report are you looking at? I think you need some help with this stuff.

What kind of engineer are you?

 

[R.Mackey]

NIST needs to show test results which back up their theory. They simply do not have that right now. If they did physical tests, with accurate models, which showed the central core columns could have had temperatures which would induce the creep they suggest I would believe them.

What calculations would you want me to show?

You're going to have to go into more detail about what you mean by "physical tests with accurate models." They constructed some of the most complicated simulations ever, and also did component tests in the UL furnaces, travelling to Canada because there are no facilities that size anywhere else. Looks to me like they've satisfied your requirement -- so if you don't agree, I need more detail.

And I was principally interested in the calculation that led you to conclude they'd need to examine 30% of the steel. Why 30%? Why not 10%, 3%, or 1%? What's your basis for this number? Please explain.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am reading it again now, it has three goals. I know this because they say "The goal of the study was threefold:". Now the school I went to said three meant 3, as in three, not four, but three. And I can even read, not bad for a simple engineer who flew jets for his country. But then maybe your school, which is a secret, taught you to read three as four. What report are you looking at? I think you need some help with this stuff.

What kind of engineer are you?

Wow, I can't believe you are saying this. Please go to NIST NCSTAR1-3 Chapter 6.6 and anyone will see FOUR goals stated. Here is the link and it is on page 94.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

 

[David Wong]

And I was principally interested in the calculation that led you to conclude they'd need to examine 30% of the steel. Why 30%? Why not 10%, 3%, or 1%? What's your basis for this number? Please explain.

Remember his entire premise that the 1% is too little is based on NIST themselves complaining that very thing. Surely once he contacts some of these people he'll get an accurate number from them.

 

[beachnut]

Wow, I can't believe you are saying this. Please go to NIST NCSTAR1-3 Chapter 6.6 and anyone will see FOUR goals stated. Here is the link and it is on page 94.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

I was reading the overall goals of the entire paper. Which still stand. Yep, you are talking about page 94, and yep the goal I stated is the overall goal, your subset is already covered, your point? I do not understand how you can prove CD from this line of argument. You need evidence of CD, not debate over NIST. I do not need NIST to know your CD stuff is wrong. Not sure why you even discuss NIST since they can not support your CD ideas.

You have thus, prove me correct. The overall goals for this NIST study were as I stated, you seem hung up on a sub section and are trying to twist the results to your theory, yet to be exposed.

 

[Gravy]

Why don't you name more than a handful of these experts you speak of there Dave and don't forget to show where they agree with it in writing?

Dude, I thought you said you were going to contact these experts. Now you say you don't even know who they are?

On this page you'll find 145 structural and fire protection engineers who worked on the investigations. The list doesn't include most of the engineers who've written scholarly papers on the subjects.

Let's see the list of qualified engineers who support your claims. Fair enough?

 

[332nd]

Maybe they tested only 1% because the people who tested it were all members of the big four?

 

[Dog Town]

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?

So you up the anti? This is the most absurd idea. They would never know the floors to be struck! Explosive's would be well heard! They got lucky! Even UBL said so!Have not read the whole thread yet. Redundent?

DT

 

[Myriad]

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.

It's been a while since my own work with fire modeling and fire testing back in the late 70s, so perhaps you can fill me in on more recent developments. Can you give me an example of any professional fire test for the purpose of testing or reproducing the performance of structural materials in a fire, involving actual burning within the modeled environment (as opposed to, say, tests using ovens), that has ever been conducted at less than full scale? (I don't mean ISO scale model fire tests or so-called box tests for evaluating how quickly different materials might spread a fire and/or the toxicity of their smoke; these are based on well-established "typical" room fire scenarios and it is not structural effects being tested.)

Also, when testing heat transfer scenarios using scale models, what's your preferred approach for compensating for the fact that a member's heat capacity depends on the cube of the scale, surface radiation rate depends on the square of the scale, and the time constant for temperature equilibration by conduction depends linearly on the scale, as does the Nusselt number characterizing the relative convective heat transfer rates? How would you apply your approach to the entire scale model test you describe, when, for instance, material preservation approaches generally require scaling of temperatures but your test involves actual combustion making that impossible? Please be specific.

Respectfully,
Myriad