Question for Ryan Mackey

[W.D.Clinger]

I'd love to look it up! Problem is, Googling that title gives absolutely no hits whatsoever, not even the Truther Echo Chamber of Fake Citations I've come to know and love.

Google Scholar doesn't know about it either.

Until such a time as you can provide that information (which should be trivially easy for someone who is describing figures from the paper), I shall simply assume you're lying out your ass about the existence of this paper.

If the paper exists, then superlogicalthinker's citation was incompetent. Whether the paper actually exists remains to be seen.

 

[ProBonoShill]

But you do owe everybody an admission that you were incorrect on two major issues in our debate on Hardfire last September.

One was where you stated several times that I was overestimating the strength of the core columns and that their factor of safety was much less than my estimate of 3.00 to 1. You said that isn't what NIST showed and you even made the bold comment that NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. It is now proven that the factor of safety of the core columns was 3.00 to 1 with the actual in-service loads considered.

Second was your use of the NIST assertion that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted 8 degrees before it descended. This has also been proven to be ridiculously incorrect as it has been shown that the upper section begins to descend when the tilt is no greater than 1 degree.

It won't look good to just ignore this Ryan. You need to come clean and admit that it was wrong for you to trust the NIST report on the twin towers implicitly. There is no shame in that but there is in ignoring proven errors.

Please tell me you're kidding Tony.

After all the errors you've made on this forum from missing jolts, three-sided buildings and freefall collapse to CD delusions (you've made many in this thread too, maybe you should re-read it) you have the audacity to call out Ryan, when he's corrected you so many times.

That's like a kid riding around on a Big Wheel telling Michael Schumacher he doesn't know how to drive.

 

[R.Mackey]

Please tell me you're kidding Tony.

After all the errors you've made on this forum from missing jolts, three-sided buildings and freefall collapse to CD delusions (you've made many in this thread too, maybe you should re-read it) you have the audacity to call out Ryan, when he's corrected you so many times.

That's like a kid riding around on a Big Wheel telling Michael Schumacher he doesn't know how to drive.

Is he still stuck on that??

First of all, both his claims are semantic in nature. The "fulcrum," as it were, of the upper portion is not at the center to begin with, so rotation also requires a small amount of downward motion. The question is how much rotation was there before the upper block had come totally free. Truthers are usually careful not to clarify what they mean. As for the other claim, "factor of safety" has a very specific meaning, and it relates to the design load, not the actual load. Tony is misusing the term. He should be talking about the Demand to Capacity Ratio. A "factor of safety" of 3 to 1 is a DCR of 0.33.

Now, with that out of the way...

Here's an independent measure of tilt prior to pure downward motion: 7.8 degrees

Here's an independent measure of core column in service DCR, one that conflicts with NIST: Gregory Urich's Estimate -- DCR = 0.44 before impact

I didn't carry out either of these calculations. Guess we're all just a bunch of liars, huh?

 

[Baylor]

Google Scholar doesn't know about it either.


If the paper exists, then superlogicalthinker's citation was incompetent. Whether the paper actually exists remains to be seen.

Will search for it on Scopus tomorrow when I'm at the library.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Second was your use of the NIST assertion that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted 8 degrees before it descended. This has also been proven to be ridiculously incorrect as it has been shown that the upper section begins to descend when the tilt is no greater than 1 degree.

Which is enough, on its own, to result in the absence of any deceleration in the subsequent collapse.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's an independent measure of core column in service DCR, one that conflicts with NIST: Gregory Urich's Estimate -- DCR = 0.44 before impact

I didn't carry out either of these calculations. Guess we're all just a bunch of liars, huh?

Well, clearly Gregory Urich's yet another OCT shill who supports the Bush regime and presents fictitious calculations to back up his official fantasies. I mean, it's not like he's ever been open to alternative explanations of 9/11.

Oh, wait...

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is he still stuck on that??

First of all, both his claims are semantic in nature. The "fulcrum," as it were, of the upper portion is not at the center to begin with, so rotation also requires a small amount of downward motion. The question is how much rotation was there before the upper block had come totally free. Truthers are usually careful not to clarify what they mean. As for the other claim, "factor of safety" has a very specific meaning, and it relates to the design load, not the actual load. Tony is misusing the term. He should be talking about the Demand to Capacity Ratio. A "factor of safety" of 3 to 1 is a DCR of 0.33.

Now, with that out of the way...

Here's an independent measure of tilt prior to pure downward motion: 7.8 degrees

Here's an independent measure of core column in service DCR, one that conflicts with NIST: Gregory Urich's Estimate -- DCR = 0.44 before impact

I didn't carry out either of these calculations. Guess we're all just a bunch of liars, huh?

The fact that you are now using another source for the DCR, with a different value, is finally an admission that you were incorrect in our debate, where you quoted NIST and said they have a best case of about 0.60 and that they don't make those kinds of mistakes.

As for Gregory's reserve strength calculation, it does not consider the fact that the unit stress on all columns (core and perimeter) of a given story was kept constant to eliminate floor warpage. Using the core column sections (which were released to the public), the fact that the perimeter columns never have less than a .250 wall thickness, the in-service load, and doing the calculations for the uppermost floors, one gets a DCR for the core of 0.33. So you are still wrong, but getting closer to reality. Factor of safety and DCR are reciprocals of each other and are relative terms which can be used for design or in-service loads. There is no hard and fast rule. It only needs to be stipulated as to which is being discussed. A failure analysis would use in-service loads, which NIST did not do. You seem to be the one getting into semantics here, as the main point is what the actual reserve strength was when the failure occurred and it was a 3.00 to 1 factor of safety or a DCR of 0.33 for the core columns.

Gregory sent me his DCR calculation that you show and I told him he was neglecting the unit stress parameter and he never got back to me. I think Gregory did a good job on the mass analysis, but he is incorrect here.

Your descent during tilt explanation is not legitimate. The hinge in WTC 1 at the north face itself breaks and there is a vertical descent of the north face before the tilt is any more than 1 degree.

With that said, I will give you credit for finally attempting to address your errors.

I don't easily call people liars, and tend to give the benefit of the doubt, so I think naive might be the descriptive word for people like yourself. Why don't you do some of your own calculations? Maybe then you will start to see the situation for what it is, rather than just quoting others.

 

[T.A.M.]

That is the first time I have heard someone call Mackey "niave". I think you are wrong Tony...Mackey may be other things, but I highly doubt NAIVE is one of them.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

Google Scholar doesn't know about it either.


If the paper exists, then superlogicalthinker's citation was incompetent. Whether the paper actually exists remains to be seen.

Sorry, I'm officially sick to death of idiots not citing things properly. I'm no longer willing to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. If this paper exists, he has a copy of it, or has at least seen a copy, as he specifically cites one of the figures. In those cases, providing a proper citation is so trivially easy, and so obviously necessary, that I cannot believe anyone with the education necessary to understand such a paper would fail to provide anything even approaching a proper citation.

If the paper exists, his failure isn't incompetence, I believe it's malice. If the paper does exist, I'm willing to bet it doesn't show what he says it does, or that it has some other major flaw that will be obvious to those here with the education and experience to evaluate it properly.

 

[TJM]

Amazing enough, the topic of this paper has been discussed here before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86899

The paper was obtained, but was it ever shared?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Sorry, I'm officially sick to death of idiots not citing things properly. I'm no longer willing to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. If this paper exists, he has a copy of it, or has at least seen a copy, as he specifically cites one of the figures. In those cases, providing a proper citation is so trivially easy, and so obviously necessary, that I cannot believe anyone with the education necessary to understand such a paper would fail to provide anything even approaching a proper citation.

Just to clarify: I am not accusing superlogicalthinker of having the education necessary to understand the paper he failed to cite properly.

If the paper exists, his failure isn't incompetence, I believe it's malice. If the paper does exist, I'm willing to bet it doesn't show what he says it does, or that it has some other major flaw that will be obvious to those here with the education and experience to evaluate it properly.

Looks like you'd have won that bet...

Amazing enough, the topic of this paper has been discussed here before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86899

Thanks.

From the thread cited by AJM8125:

The paper is interesting and detailed about design constraints faced in building 7 WTC, about the steel construction, and other such details, though I don't think it adds much that's not already mentioned in the NIST and FEMA reports. It essentially confirms things, but with more technical details/language, and makes it more obvious where NIST got some of the information.

ETA: Found a (possibly illegal) copy of the paper here:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf?attredirects=1

Figure 5 is labelled "Typical Floor Framing", refers to three-quarter inch studs "equally spaced", and shows the number of studs for about 15 classes of beams. Most of those notations include "TYP", presumably meaning typical. (I see no mention of "sheer studs" in that figure, but a Google search shows that "sheer studs" is the common misspelling in Truther-world.)

According to the first page of the paper, Figure 5 applies to floors 8 to 46. Comparing Figure 5 to NCSTAR 1-9 Figure 8-16 (which is based on a plan provided by Frankel Steel), there does indeed appear to be a discrepancy. NIST cites the structural drawings (Cantor 1985) for the absence of shear studs on the girder in question. NIST and Salvarinas agree on the presence of shear studs on other girders.

Faced with that discrepancy, I'd be inclined to go with the structural drawings over a conference paper, and with people who can spell "shear studs" over people who can't, but that's just me.

 

[Horatius]

Amazing enough, the topic of this paper has been discussed here before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86899

The paper was obtained, but was it ever shared?

Thanks for that.


Seems it's not online anywhere that I can find.

 

[TJM]

It's cited a few times in the WTC 7 wiki article, where I found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-fema-ch5-0

 

[Horatius]

It's cited a few times in the WTC 7 wiki article, where I found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-fema-ch5-0

Yeah, but there's still no link to the actual paper.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'd love to look it up! Problem is, Googling that title gives absolutely no hits whatsoever, not even the Truther Echo Chamber of Fake Citations I've come to know and love.


Why do you Truthers find it so *********** hard to properly cite your references? Would it kill you to provide a journal title, volume, issue and page number?

Since you're so convinced we won't look it up, providing such info should pose no risk to you.

Until such a time as you can provide that information (which should be trivially easy for someone who is describing figures from the paper), I shall simply assume you're lying out your ass about the existence of this paper.


Do feel free to prove me completely wrong.

Google Scholar doesn't know about it either.


If the paper exists, then superlogicalthinker's citation was incompetent. Whether the paper actually exists remains to be seen.

Sorry, I'm officially sick to death of idiots not citing things properly. I'm no longer willing to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. If this paper exists, he has a copy of it, or has at least seen a copy, as he specifically cites one of the figures. In those cases, providing a proper citation is so trivially easy, and so obviously necessary, that I cannot believe anyone with the education necessary to understand such a paper would fail to provide anything even approaching a proper citation.

If the paper exists, his failure isn't incompetence, I believe it's malice. If the paper does exist, I'm willing to bet it doesn't show what he says it does, or that it has some other major flaw that will be obvious to those here with the education and experience to evaluate it properly.

Amazing enough, the topic of this paper has been discussed here before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86899

The paper was obtained, but was it ever shared?

Just to clarify: I am not accusing superlogicalthinker of having the education necessary to understand the paper he failed to cite properly.


Looks like you'd have won that bet...


Thanks.

From the thread cited by AJM8125:

Thanks for that.


Seems it's not online anywhere that I can find.

It's cited a few times in the WTC 7 wiki article, where I found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-fema-ch5-0

Yeah, but there's still no link to the actual paper.

Guys, if you're talking about the Salvarinas paper "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects", I've got a copy on PDF. It's a bit ugly because it's a scanned copy that's been converted to .pdf, but I've got one (don't remember how I found it). Here's the figure 5 that's being cited:

Does that help?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, Ps. It's not something published in a journal, it's a paper presented at a conference. Here's the cover page:

 

[Horatius]

Guys, if you're talking about the Salvarinas paper "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects", I've got a copy on PDF. It's a bit ugly because it's a scanned copy that's been converted to .pdf, but I've got one (don't remember how I found it). Here's the figure 5 that's being cited:

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Salvarinas-Fig5.jpg[/qimg]

Does that help?

No idea. Does this figure show what he's describing?

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper:" Seven Wold Trade Center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects" I challenge any of you to look it up.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical (there's that word again) collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

ETA: gone and read the NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343. It seems to me there's some differences in terminology being used here. I suspect he's misrepresenting both articles, but it would take someone with better knowledge of the proper terminology to confirm that.

 

[ProBonoShill]

No idea. Does this figure show what he's describing?







ETA: gone and read the NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343. It seems to me there's some differences in terminology being used here. I suspect he's misrepresenting both articles, but it would take someone with better knowledge of the proper terminology to confirm that.

I suspect the same, it appears he's confusing the location of the studs.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No idea. Does this figure show what he's describing?

Heck if I know. I'd need Netwon's Bit, Architect, or one of the other engineers or architects here to tell me. Also, I only now noticed that the resolution on that image isn't all that great, so unfortunately a good bit of the text is to fuzzed to read. Short of making the image painfully large - which I'd rather not do, since it would screw people with small resolutions or accessing through smartphones - I'm not sure how to overcome that.

ETA: gone and read the NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343. It seems to me there's some differences in terminology being used here. I suspect he's misrepresenting both articles, but it would take someone with better knowledge of the proper terminology to confirm that.

I suspect the same, it appears he's confusing the location of the studs.

If either of you want, PM me an email address and I'll forward the pdf to you. That of couse won't help with the expert interpretation, but at least you'll see the document instead of jpgs of it.

 

[Horatius]

Heck if I know. I'd need Netwon's Bit, Architect, or one of the other engineers or architects here to tell me. Also, I only now noticed that the resolution on that image isn't all that great, so unfortunately a good bit of the text is to fuzzed to read. Short of making the image painfully large - which I'd rather not do, since it would screw people with small resolutions or accessing through smartphones - I'm not sure how to overcome that.

Well, the things in that diagram are labelled "studs", but it's not clear that they're acting as "shear studs". Also, if you look at the pages of NCSTAR cited, it's not clear if they're saying such studs did not exist at all, or just that they were not in a traditional arrangement. They even have a similar diagram that shows "Floor beams framed into only one side of a girder in several locations in WTC7", and it seems to me these "beams" are the things labelled "studs" in the diagram above. NCSTAR goes on to say "The relevance of this framing condition, in concert with the presence (or absence) of shear studs, ... is covered next." So it seems NIST considers these terms to be different, but it's not clear from context what that difference is.