Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

[TheLoneBedouin]

There, I handwaved your logic with no supporting argument.

Fixed that for you.

You evidence that they are wrong is?

I didn't claim they were wrong.

Yet you can't come up with a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

Not quite sure when to mindlessly support or retract are you? The claim was Nist's- do you think the claim that any "smaller explosive charge [than the previously ruled out minimum] couldn't have brought down the building" has no evidence?

False. They claim that explosives would not have been responsible.

Are you mentally-impaired? I'm quoting directly from the report:
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7".
The step from "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse" to "explosions played no role whatsoever in the collapse" is not supported by Nist's premises, and hence, is an invalid conclusion.

The only fallacy is what you are writing.

Logic is a logical fallacy? So you are using non-classical logics? No wonder you believe the official story!

There is no evidence of explosive or the type of explosion they would make.

Red herring- this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that:

It is also a fallacy to claim that since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred.

While true, NIST is talking about what caused the "confined energy release" not the "release" itself. You know this which is why you have to resort to lies and misquotes.

What bs. I quoted directly from the report. They refer to "blast events"- I'm sure you can string meanings together.
If a blast is a "confined energy release" then an "event in which confined energy is released" is merely a redudant way of saying blast or explosion.

 

[Clippy]

So are any of the debunkers going to go over to The 9/11 Forum and have a go at Dr. Greening's critique.

 

[SDC]

Do you understand that Dr Greening does not support the "inside job" approach? Have you actually read anything, whether the NIST report or any response?

 

[lapman]

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, ok, just because you possess no incling of logic makes you right? Remember, you're the one that wrote

Nist says there is no evidence of explosions that could have "failed the critical column" (and thats with the assumption that a 140 dB producing charge is needed, which is a seperate problem) so therefore there were no explosions at all.

That is wrong on every level. Only someone that is so desperate to hold on the their fantasies would believe that. Reasonable adults would not come up with that conclusion.

I didn't claim they were wrong.

But you are claiming that they are wrong.

Not quite sure when to mindlessly support or retract are you? The claim was Nist's- do you think the claim that any "smaller explosive charge [than the previously ruled out minimum] couldn't have brought down the building" has no evidence?

False. You rule it out because it doesn't fit your warped view of the world. You have yet to provide any evidence of what size of charge it would take.

Are you mentally-impaired? I'm quoting directly from the report:
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7".

Yes that is the quote, then you bastardize it with:

The step from "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse" to "explosions played no role whatsoever in the collapse" is not supported by Nist's premises, and hence, is an invalid conclusion.

when you know that they are talking about explosives. There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were present. The audio record proves this.

Logic is a logical fallacy? So you are using non-classical logics? No wonder you believe the official story!

Oh? You are the one using the illogical reasoning of "not large enough" = "none at all."

Red herring- this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that:

You debunk yourself when you state:

It is also a fallacy to claim that since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred.

You are the one using this very fallacy when you stated:

Nist says there is no evidence of explosions that could have "failed the critical column" (and thats with the assumption that a 140 dB producing charge is needed, which is a seperate problem) so therefore there were no explosions at all.

What bs. I quoted directly from the report. They refer to "blast events"- I'm sure you can string meanings together.

Yes you did quote directly from the report, then you went and used your illogical approach and claimed that they said something they didn't.

If a blast is a "confined energy release" then an "event in which confined energy is released" is merely a redudant way of saying blast or explosion.

Caused by explosives. That is what they are talking about. I can see why you will not acknowledge this since you have a fantasy to defend.

 

[metamars]

Does Emporer NIST have no clothes?

I took a look at part of the NCSTAR doc that Dictator Cheney pointed me to in the911forum thread, and, well, there seem to be some problems. I am cross posting :

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf

Page 538 - 543 it isnt that much to read.

and if you want i can get you more details about the LS-Dyna standard materials they used, end of next week, when i have acces to LS-Dyna.

On p. 539 (201 in the pdf reader), we read that

For the regions of WTC 7 subjected to heating by fires (between Floors 7 and 14), termperature-dependent material models were used for the framing. The material model used for the steel in the fire-affected floors was the Elastic-Viscoplastic Thermal (Type 106) model in LS-DYNA, which included thermal expansion and thermal degradation in material stiffness and strength. This model used the same parameters to define the nonlinear material behavior of steel at room temperature as the Type 24 model, but included additional parameters to define temperature dependence. The yield strength, elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, and thermal expansion coefficient were all identified as a function of temperature. The temperature-dependent models used the same failure criterion as that applied at room temperature. The temperature-dependent material properties and constitutive model parameters for the steels and bolts used in WTC 7 are presented in Appendix E. Example of the stress-strain curves for the 50 ksi steel at various temperatures is shown in Figure 12-2.

However, when we look at E.3.1, p. 708, we read

The WTC investigation developed a methodology for estimating the creep properties of untested steels based on creep models of existing steels.....Although tensile strength scaling produced the best agreement, in many cases the agreement was not very good. Frequently the predicted strain differed from the actual by more than a factor of ten.

Well, that doesn't sound too good. However, the very next sentence says

Differences of this magnitude correspond to temperature offsets of around 35 deg C or stress offsets of 17 MPa.

Frankly, while I have no intuition on the 17 MPa offset figure, 35 deg C doesn't sound bad, at all. So, color me confused.

However, the last sentence is also mysterious to me, and also raises doubts about how accurate their modeling was:

Because no steel relevant to the creep modeling was recovered from WTC7, it is impossible to create more accurate models.

The problems I have with this are as follows:

1) If they have accurate knowledge about exact steels used, and good models for those same steels, then if their fire models were accurate and adequate (and if they had enough computer horsepower), steel specimens would not be essential, other than as sanity checks.
2) If they are missing some essentials I list in 1), and physical specimens could have been used to provide data needed to tweak the models to make them accurate, the fact that these were not recovered means that they can't even do that! So, while NIST is implying that their models are good enough, I don't see how they can have any confidence that this is so.

Getting back to my quote, even miniscule amounts of Boron added to a steel can have a big effect on it's behavior at high temperatures. So, I don't have have a warm fuzzy feeling about using models for "similar" steels, as, e.g., is mentioned on p. 716, where they used behavior based on "Austrailian AS149 steel, which is similar to ASTM A 36"

As if that's not enough, on p. 718, we read

The models developed were technically for the steels from which the bolts were made, rather than for the bolts. Bolt failure is complex at both room- and elevated-temperature, and no methodology exists for modeling the failure of bolts, as distinct from the steels form which they are made, at elevated temperature.

(emphasis mine)

While it may not even be possible to make an accurate model of such a complex, large system as WTC 7 + fires, should NIST be claiming explanations based on what amounts, apparently, to a massive guess, just because they made an effort? Did they give themselves an 'A', just for effort?

 

[metamars]

Getting back to my quote, even miniscule amounts of Boron added to a steel can have a big effect on it's behavior at high temperatures.

I was referring to:


The distribution of boron in stainless steels as revealed by a nuclear technique

Boron is also used to increase the creep properties of oxidation-resisting steels and stainless steels used at elevated temperatures.3 The addition of about 50 p.p.m. leads to an increase in the mean stress-to-rupture life by a factor of 3 or an increase in stress to failure in 10,000 hours of up to 25 per cent.

 

[rwguinn]

I was referring to:


The distribution of boron in stainless steels as revealed by a nuclear technique

So, why bring CRES into a carbon steel discussion?
Carbon steels are predictable. AFAIK, no CRES was used in the construction of the towers. Expensive, (relatively) weak...

 

[metamars]

So, why bring CRES into a carbon steel discussion?
Carbon steels are predictable. AFAIK, no CRES was used in the construction of the towers. Expensive, (relatively) weak...

Because similar phenomena, depending critically on the chemical details of what is added to the steel, may be a factor.

I don't really know - I'm not the Man of Steel, ya know...

 

[AZCat]

Because similar phenomena, depending critically on the chemical details of what is added to the steel, may be a factor.

I don't really know - I'm not the Man of Steel, ya know...

They don't just randomly add different chemicals to steel, you know. While the NIST doesn't have samples from the specific steel, they have the documentation from the engineer (and contractor, I think) that explains what type of steel was used in the construction of WTC 7.

 

[metamars]

They don't just randomly add different chemicals to steel, you know. While the NIST doesn't have samples from the specific steel, they have the documentation from the engineer (and contractor, I think) that explains what type of steel was used in the construction of WTC 7.

I wasn't suggesting that there would have been random addition of minute quantities of chemicals that can radically change steel's behavior at high temperature.

Instead, I was suggesting that, if a situation similar to that of the reference I quoted also pertained to the steels of WTC7 that NIST sought to model, then using models for "similar" steels, instead, would give a really bad result.

In light of the quote I posted, this seems eminently plausible. Hopefully, people with the right background will look into this and advise the rest of us what the real story is.

 

[rwguinn]

I wasn't suggesting that there would have been random addition of minute quantities of chemicals that can radically change steel's behavior at high temperature.

Instead, I was suggesting that, if a situation similar to that of the reference I quoted also pertained to the steels of WTC7 that NIST sought to model, then using models for "similar" steels, instead, would give a really bad result.

In light of the quote I posted, this seems eminently plausible. Hopefully, people with the right background will look into this and advise the rest of us what the real story is.

Again, Why would it apply? It is most implausible
A-36 steel (the primary structural steel used) is a known composition. It is/was used for damn near everything, from bridges to buildings. It has a specific composition. Other steels used in construction are very, very similar in properties.
You do NOT mix properties. You want the structure to react predictably to environmental factors, and you do NOT mix incompatible materials--i.e., materials with radically different coefficients of thermal expansion without special consideration (Glass mounted in windows frames, for example).
Are you sure you're not Apollo20 in disguise D)
He, too, had trouble distinguishing between stainless and carbon steel, and their characteristics. Always wanted to apply CRES characteristics to carbon steel...

 

[metamars]

Again, Why would it apply? It is most implausible
A-36 steel (the primary structural steel used) is a known composition. It is/was used for damn near everything, from bridges to buildings. It has a specific composition. Other steels used in construction are very, very similar in properties.
You do NOT mix properties. You want the structure to react predictably to environmental factors, and you do NOT mix incompatible materials--i.e., materials with radically different coefficients of thermal expansion without special consideration (Glass mounted in windows frames, for example).
Are you sure you're not Apollo20 in disguise D)
He, too, had trouble distinguishing between stainless and carbon steel, and their characteristics. Always wanted to apply CRES characteristics to carbon steel...

Some questions:
1) How much Boron is in A-36?
2) What is added to A-36, and why? In particular, how does whatever additives may be used affect behavior at high temperatures?
3) since A-36 is ubiquitous, why did NIST use models for Australian AS149 steel for it?


Anybody who answers any of these questions gets a virtual gold star!

 

[AZCat]

Some questions:
1) How much Boron is in A-36?
2) What is added to A-36, and why? In particular, how does whatever additives may be used affect behavior at high temperatures?
3) since A-36 is ubiquitous, why did NIST use models for Australian AS149 steel for it?


Anybody who answers any of these questions gets a virtual gold star!

1) None.
2) Manganese, copper, phosphorous, sulfur.
3) Dunno. It is possible they are the same thing. On Edit: Appendix E, Section E3.2 says "The creep behavior of A 36 steel was modeled based on the parameters in Fields (1989). That model is based on test of Australian AS149 steel, which is similar to ASTM A 36." There might be further explication in the reference.

If you're really interested in A36 steel, you might want to check out the ASTM A36 standard. It's 31 bucks, but should contain everything you want to know about A36 steel.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

That is wrong on every level. Only someone that is so desperate to hold on the their fantasies would believe that. Reasonable adults would not come up with that conclusion.

Reasonable people would back up their claims with evidence. I have done so, you've merely claimed I'm wrong.

The step from "explosions could not have been the sole cause of the collapse" to "explosions played no role whatsoever in the collapse" is not supported by Nist's premises, and hence, is an invalid conclusion.

when you know that they are talking about explosives.

Blast event = explosion. Nowhere do they mention explosions except:

Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Nist concluded that blast events did not occur [...]In the second scenario, the explosion was to be effected in the shortest time possible.

There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were present. The audio record proves this.

No, the audio record proves (according to Nist) that no explosive capable of failing the critical collumn was present. And I'm the one who has "no incling in logic"?

You debunk yourself when you state:

It is also a fallacy to claim that since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred.

You're not making much sense hear. How do I debunk myself- I never claimed that "since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred"- Nist did.

Caused by explosives. That is what they are talking about. I can see why you will not acknowledge this since you have a fantasy to defend.

It makes no sense to replace the term "blast event" with "explosion caused by an explosive", since there is no mention of "explosions not caused by explosives". We can safely assume that "blast event" refers to all explosions. Furthermore, whatever you interpret "blast event" to mean, Nist still commits a logical fallacy (invalid argument).

 

[funk de fino]

Reasonable people would back up their claims with evidence. I have done so, you've merely claimed I'm wrong.


Blast event = explosion. Nowhere do they mention explosions except:


No, the audio record proves (according to Nist) that no explosive capable of failing the critical collumn was present. And I'm the one who has "no incling in logic"?

You're not making much sense hear. How do I debunk myself- I never claimed that "since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred"- Nist did.

It makes no sense to replace the term "blast event" with "explosion caused by an explosive", since there is no mention of "explosions not caused by explosives". We can safely assume that "blast event" refers to all explosions. Furthermore, whatever you interpret "blast event" to mean, Nist still commits a logical fallacy (invalid argument).

The only reason the hypothetical blast event was looked at was to pacify stupid truthers who claim CD by explosives. If there was no TM I doubt they would have even mentioned a blast event therefore the blast event is in direct relation to an explosion caused by explosives for a CD.

blast event = hypothetical explosives used in CD causing collapse

there is no evidence of the blast event

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The only reason the hypothetical blast event was looked at was to pacify stupid truthers who claim CD by explosives. If there was no TM I doubt they would have even mentioned a blast event therefore the blast event is in direct relation to an explosion caused by explosives for a CD.

blast event = hypothetical explosives used in CD causing collapse

there is no evidence of the blast event

I must point out that a blast event is not necessarily the result of explosives, hydrogen, explodes as does carbon dioxide, There could be several other reasons for explosions, with small enough over pressures to cause the collapse of an already strained and weakened building.

 

[lapman]

Reasonable people would back up their claims with evidence. I have done so, you've merely claimed I'm wrong.

Well, since you have not given anything close to even resembling evidence to support your fictitious silent explosives, you are guilty of the same.

Blast event = explosion. Nowhere do they mention explosions except:

What you fail to understand is that NIST is using a general term so that fantasists, such as yourself, can't make up some other fictitious "demolition charge" like super-duper-silent-explosive-nanothermitic-termites^TM to handwave away their finding away.

No, the audio record proves (according to Nist) that no explosive capable of failing the critical collumn was present. And I'm the one who has "no incling in logic"?

Yeah, we all know that "blast events" cause by explosives are silent and that 100% of all video cameras, cell phone, audio tape recorders, radio microphones, etc. were specifically designed to not pick up any of the sound that might me made. So, please explain why I hear the blast events at Disneyland every night even though it is over 6 1/2 miles away and I do not have a direct line of sight to the source?

You're not making much sense hear. How do I debunk myself- I never claimed that "since there is no evidence of an explosion that could take down the tower by itself, no explosion of any magnitude occurred"- Nist did.

False, you are the one that is purposely misquoting NIST.

It makes no sense to replace the term "blast event" with "explosion caused by an explosive", since there is no mention of "explosions not caused by explosives". We can safely assume that "blast event" refers to all explosions. Furthermore, whatever you interpret "blast event" to mean, Nist still commits a logical fallacy (invalid argument).

You are making a logical fallacy. NIST is specifically writing about all "blast events" that could even come close to causing the building to collapse. NIST clarifies it's position when they wrote:

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Emphasis mine. So, the onus is now on you to provide real evidence by showing a real controlled demolition by explosives done before or since 9/11 that:

1. Therm*te was used
2. Was silent
3. Had the roof structures collapse seconds prior to the rest of the building.
4. The building was set on fire hours before the demolition.
5. Was set off by the Fire Department

 

[DC]

The FEA software that I use regularly at work is called RISA. It scales up deflected shapes by a factor of 40 by default. Why? Because a 1" deflection
on a 40' frame will be about 1 pixel on screen. You'd never even notice it.

This is pretty typical stuff in engineering.

and Ansys LS-Dyna has a default deflection scale of 1:1 for Simulations with big deflections.

and as i did not see anything from NIST that would indicate that they changed this default setting, i conclude that they left it at 1:1. all other setings would be of no use in a total collapse simulation.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Nice avatar, LoneBedouin.
Say, did he reject you?

 

[DC]

and Ansys LS-Dyna has a default deflection scale of 1:1 for Simulations with big deflections.

and as i did not see anything from NIST that would indicate that they changed this default setting, i conclude that they left it at 1:1. all other setings would be of no use in a total collapse simulation.

Bumb for our JREF FE Experts that knew so much more about the Deflection scales than Dr. Greenings.