Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[ElMondoHummus]

Perhaps Prof Quintiere might also be useful here. The truthers love him for criticising NIST, after all, so I'm sure they'll also take him seriously when he says "I believe the fuel loading used by NIST is in error and was too low" (for WTC1 and 2, at least), and gives his reasons.

I thought about pointing this out myself, but in all fairness, Red was talking about Tower 7. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Quintiere hasn't commented on that report.

 

[MikeW]

I thought about pointing this out myself, but in all fairness, Red was talking about Tower 7. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Quintiere hasn't commented on that report.

Sure. It does suggest NIST aren't somehow institutionally devoted to making the best possible case for fire-based collapses, though. And Quintiere's ideas on fire load for WTC1 and 2 may help us get a feel for how realistic the WTC7 values really are.

 

[RedIbis]

Sure. It does suggest NIST aren't somehow institutionally devoted to making the best possible case for fire-based collapses, though. And Quintiere's ideas on fire load for WTC1 and 2 may help us get a feel for how realistic the WTC7 values really are.

How do you figure?

 

[MikeW]

How do you figure?

If you mean that "NIST aren't somehow institutionally devoted to making the best possible case for fire-based collapses", it's because Quintiere's suggesting their WTC1 and 2 studies used much lower fire loads than were actually the case, resulting in an 800 degree C fire for only around 20 minutes, while his model showed regions in excess of that for 45 minutes (all in the link I mentioned). So he's saying NIST significantly underestimated the fire condition.

If you mean how can his figures help us re: WTC7, now I've refreshed my memory by looking at the report, they probably can't: my mistake. NIST did again use a relatively low figure compared to Quintiere's WTC1 and 2 estimates (and his range for offices generally), but they say higher loads were a poor match with "the observed fire spread rates". There's probably not much we can take from the comparison, then, so I take that comment back.

 

[RedIbis]

If you mean how can his figures help us re: WTC7, now I've refreshed my memory by looking at the report, they probably can't: my mistake. NIST did again use a relatively low figure compared to Quintiere's WTC1 and 2 estimates (and his range for offices generally), but they say higher loads were a poor match with "the observed fire spread rates". There's probably not much we can take from the comparison, then, so I take that comment back.

Fair enough. It's complicated and I don't expect anyone to have perfect recall on these important details. Still, I don't think NIST used "relatively low figures" for fuel loads, nor burn duration. In fact, these were exaggerated to initiate collapse in their models.

 

[BigAl]

Fair enough. It's complicated and I don't expect anyone to have perfect recall on these important details. Still, I don't think NIST used "relatively low figures" for fuel loads, nor burn duration. In fact, these were exaggerated to initiate collapse in their models.

But page 383 doesn't say that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In fact, these were exaggerated to initiate collapse in their models.

Liar.

Dave

ETA: I'd like to be able to retract that, but there is just nothing else left to say to RedIbis. He's had it clearly explained to him with reference to the primary source that this is untrue, and he still insists on repeating the proven lie. There is simply no other rational response left.

 

[RedIbis]

Liar.

Dave

ETA: I'd like to be able to retract that, but there is just nothing else left to say to RedIbis. He's had it clearly explained to him with reference to the primary source that this is untrue, and he still insists on repeating the proven lie. There is simply no other rational response left.

How did NIST calculate the fuel loading of Floor 13 in WTC 7?

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.

This is obviously a huge gaffe and you should probably focus on it rather than have to confront the reality that NIST had to overestimate burn durations to get their computer models to simulate collapse.

.

Well, you might have noticed that you were also asked several times exactly what 'physical evidence' you believe that NIST should have used and how the location in the structure of those pieces of evidence could be positively identified.

I too have a life outside posting but come on Red, this came up back in October and earlier and in that thread I know you read my posts. You responded to a few of them.

 

[jaydeehess]

How did NIST calculate the fuel loading of Floor 13 in WTC 7?

I've lost track.
Did you ever back up your assurtion that NIST grossly overestimated the fuel load?
If not then the question remains unaddressed.

I do not recall you offering anything at all about how you believe the fuel load SHOULD have been determined either.

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought about pointing this out myself, but in all fairness, Red was talking about Tower 7. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Quintiere hasn't commented on that report.

Sure. It does suggest NIST aren't somehow institutionally devoted to making the best possible case for fire-based collapses, though. And Quintiere's ideas on fire load for WTC1 and 2 may help us get a feel for how realistic the WTC7 values really are.

How do you figure?

While not directly attributable to WTC 7, Quintere's report re: the fuel loading NIST used in the towers, indicates that NIST had a recent history of underestimating fuel load (in the fully expressed and educated opinion of a fire expert) whereas your claim ( a weakly, though repeatedly, expressed and uneducated opinion) is that for WTC 7 they did exactly the opposite.

As pointed out above its a weak point so I will hope you do not now focus on this partial gaffe.

 

[RedIbis]

I've lost track.
Did you ever back up your assurtion that NIST grossly overestimated the fuel load?
If not then the question remains unaddressed.

I do not recall you offering anything at all about how you believe the fuel load SHOULD have been determined either.

If anyone wants a thorough, highly scientific and civil discussion of flaws in NIST's WTC 7 report, please read through this discussion.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44-150.html

I also notice that when Dave briefly popped in, he didn't call Greening a liar when he said:

In view of the fact that NIST appears to have overestimated the intensity and duration of the fires in WTC 7, particularly on floor 12, it follows that the heating of the structural steel is also overestimated in the WTC 7 Draft Report. This is fatal to the overall validity of NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis because NIST’s hypothesis is predicated on the thermal expansion of long span beams and girders on floors 12/13 and their eventual loss of connectivity with column 79, (See Chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1-9).

 

[BigAl]

If anyone wants a thorough, highly scientific and civil discussion of flaws in NIST's WTC 7 report, please read through this discussion.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44-150.html

I also notice that when Dave briefly popped in, he didn't call Greening a liar when he said:

Page 383 still fails to mean what you claim it does.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well REd since others have actually quoted other threads here to back up exactly what they refer to how about you back up your assertion that NIST grossly overestimated the fuel loads?

Greening has the intensity and duration being different than NIST's, fine.
There is also the CTBUH who question NIST on the cause of girder failure being thermal expansion when it is entirely possible tat it occurred during thermal contraction of the deformed beams in which case they would have PULLED the girder off its seats.

Still waiting on exactly how you would have identified the physical evidence of structural elements from WTC 7's 11-13 floors.
Or are you abandoning that clarion call for physical evidence because its been pointed out to you that it was simply not a possibility.

 

[RedIbis]

Well REd since others have actually quoted other threads here to back up exactly what they refer to how about you back up your assertion that NIST grossly overestimated the fuel loads?

Greening has the intensity and duration being different than NIST's, fine.
There is also the CTBUH who question NIST on the cause of girder failure being thermal expansion when it is entirely possible tat it occurred during thermal contraction of the deformed beams in which case they would have PULLED the girder off its seats.

Still waiting on exactly how you would have identified the physical evidence of structural elements from WTC 7's 11-13 floors.
Or are you abandoning that clarion call for physical evidence because its been pointed out to you that it was simply not a possibility.

I asked a very straightforward question in Post #408. Take a shot at it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also notice that when Dave briefly popped in, he didn't call Greening a liar when he said:

That's because he wasn't lying. It's a subtle distinction, but "NIST appears to have overestimated the intensity and duration of fires" is a statement of opinion concerning a poorly chosen set of parameters, whereas "In fact, these were exaggerated to initiate collapse in their models" is an accusation of deliberate deception and, in the absence of supporting evidence, a lie. And however much you may try to sidestep the issue by shifting the burden of proof and demanding evidence that NIST's assumptions were correct, it's not your worthless, uninformed opinion that's the lie, but your unfounded accusation. Anyone with normal intelligence, a functioning moral sense and an adequate education is able to see the difference.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

That's because he wasn't lying. It's a subtle distinction, but "NIST appears to have overestimated the intensity and duration of fires" is a statement of opinion concerning a poorly chosen set of parameters, whereas "In fact, these were exaggerated to initiate collapse in their models" is an accusation of deliberate deception and, in the absence of supporting evidence, a lie. And however much you may try to sidestep the issue by shifting the burden of proof and demanding evidence that NIST's assumptions were correct, it's not your worthless, uninformed opinion that's the lie, but your unfounded accusation. Anyone with normal intelligence, a functioning moral sense and an adequate education is able to see the difference.

Dave

So this is a moral issue for you. I imagine you're a hell of a lot more comfortable feigning indignation than debating Greening on his assertions in that forum.

Regardless of language you're more comfortable with, his analysis is devastating to the NIST report.

I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

I asked a very straightforward question in Post #408. Take a shot at it.

I asked you a very straight forward question both recently (a few times now even) and waaay back in October.

Once again then consisely and with feeling;

YOU wail and moan about physical evidence but so far have not answered my question about exactly what physical evidence you would be speaking about and if its to be the beams and girder in question then the question was how you plan on positively identifying them and if that is managed then how you determine pre- vs. post collapse heat damage.

Take a shot at it.

 

[jaydeehess]

If anyone wants a thorough, highly scientific and civil discussion of flaws in NIST's WTC 7 report, please read through this discussion.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44-150.html

I also notice that when Dave briefly popped in, he didn't call Greening a liar when he said:

So this is a moral issue for you. I imagine you're a hell of a lot more comfortable feigning indignation than debating Greening on his assertions in that forum.

Regardless of language you're more comfortable with, his analysis is devastating to the NIST report.

RedI, Dave pointed out, correctly, that Greening does not presume deception or lies from NIST, YOU do.

So, no, Greening is not lieing, at worst he is wrong.

However you are either extremely bad at reading the NIST report and understanding it and thus also wrong, or you are deliberatly misrepresenting both NIST and now Greening in which case you are lieing.

I do know that you ignore and duck questions about your own contentions and in many circles (especially politically motivated ones) that is not considered lieing. (i.e. its not a lie if you don't say anything)

To my knowledge I have never called you a liar though that cannot be said for all posters here. To my mind then that simply makes you wrong.

 

[jaydeehess]

........Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

........

Odd that you would rely on everything but physical evidence. ............
.

I agree and what physical evidence did NIST present to come up with their single column collapse hypothesis?

........

ONCE AGAIN RedI; Given that the steel in WTC 7 was unmarked and thus it would be impossible to tell where any specific floor beams of girders came from how would these structural elements be useful in a forensic investigation? Seems to me I asked you that about a year ago. I do not recall your reply.(at the time you were going on about the idea that they should have saved col 79 and I pointed out that all that would do is show that col 79 failed, not why. NIST's study has it failing due to damage done by having the girder pushed off its column seats so those are the pieces you would need)

I also pointed out that there were underground fires as well as collapse damage done to all structural elements and it would be quite problematic to determine what heat damage occured pre collapse versus post collapse so even if it were possible to positively identify the beams and girders you would still be unable to garner much usable data from them if they were located in an area of post collapse fires.

.........

YOU know what NIST should have done so let's hear it.

RED???