• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any published papers criticizing NIST?

Why don't you explain how failed trusses could pull in the south perimeter wall.
 
Does Quintiere talk about sagging trusses? His whole thesis is centered around truss vulnerability! And so was the practical experiment he and his group conducted!

The paper is titled "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower", the authors are Ming Wang, Peter Chang, Dr. Quintiere himself, and Andre Marshall, and the periodical it was published in is the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. That group is one of the few people to independently verify the observed timeline of the inward building sag and directly tie it in with truss temperature, yet at the same time that group is one of the few to contradict NIST's explanation by demonstrating that the temperatures can be reached even with fireproofing still being attached.

My God... what level of oblivion is required to ask if Quintiere was talking about trusses? That's like asking if Darwin was talking about organisms. *smh*
 
ElMondoHummus said:
My God... what level of oblivion is required to ask if Quintiere was talking about trusses? That's like asking if Darwin was talking about organisms. *smh*
Click to expand...

And he wonders why I said he's never read the report he criticized (that Dr. Q contributed to).

Yeah, I'm the one with "egg on my face".

:rolleyes:
 
I think you guys are confusing sagging trusses, which are needed to pull in the perimeter columns, and truss failure, which would be needed for a pancaking floors collapse.
 
DGM said:
And he wonders why I said he's never read the report he criticized (that Dr. Q contributed to).

Yeah, I'm the one with "egg on my face".

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not only that, he misunderstands nearly everything being discussed. I noticed back in one of your posts him saying something about the truss model being "abandoned". That's yet another production from his posterior; not only does NIST discuss truss failure, but Quintiere takes them to task for (in his professional opinion, backed up by that experiment) not placing enough emphasis on it. It's the opposite of abandoned.

One of the things that really disturbs me about truthers is the facility they demonstrate in just making things up. I mean, serial lying is an obvious symptom of some sort of mental pathology, and too many of these guys do it all too often. There's little wonder why some of us ask whether they're mentally ill; they keep throwing out signs that they are.
 
ergo said:
I think you guys are confusing sagging trusses, which are needed to pull in the perimeter columns, and truss failure, which would be needed for a pancaking floors collapse.
Click to expand...
I think you need to stop shoveling, your hole is deep enough.


:rolleyes:
 
No, DGM. I really don't think you know the difference between the sagging trusses model and truss failure.
 
DGM said:
I think you need to stop shoveling, your hole is deep enough.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He said what? OMG...

The sag is what induces failure. Both Quintiere and NIST are clear about this; they only differ in detail regarding fireproofing. The truss unseating is the result of truss sag, and it's the sagging causing the unseating that is the overall failure mode! When the trusses sag, they pull the columns in. The connections are then stressed and bent and eventually they fail. And indeed, the recovered truss seats show signs of this very sort of distortion (NCSTAR 1-3C).

Sag is the first step in the failure sequence. This is understood. Why in God's name would someone even try to separate them?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Not only that, he misunderstands nearly everything being discussed. I noticed back in one of your posts him saying something about the truss model being "abandoned". That's yet another production from his posterior; not only does NIST discuss truss failure, but Quintiere takes them to task for (in his professional opinion, backed up by that experiment) not placing enough emphasis on it. It's the opposite of abandoned.
Click to expand...

And I was wrong stating he really needed to need (or have it read to him) the report he was commenting on.

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
He said what? OMG...

The sag is what induces failure. Both Quintiere and NIST are clear about this; they only differ in detail regarding fireproofing. The truss unseating is the result of truss sag, and it's the sagging causing the unseating that is the overall failure mode! When the trusses sag, they pull the columns in. The connections are then stressed and bent and eventually they fail. And indeed, the recovered truss seats show signs of this very sort of distortion (NCSTAR 1-3C).

Sag is the first step in the failure sequence. This is understood. Why in God's name would someone even try to separate them?
Click to expand...
He's gone to digging his "hole" with heavy equipment.

Like I said. If only he had actually read any of the reports he likes to "comment" on.


:rolleyes:
 
DGM and El Mondo, you are very confused. NIST does not model collapse progression. The NIST model of collapse initiation in WTC1 proposes sagging trusses that pull in the south perimeter wall, leading to column buckling, eccentric loading then total column failure propagating across the impact zone.
 
But, again, his arrogance more than makes up for it folks. It's all good.
 
ergo said:
DGM and El Mondo, you are very confused. NIST does not model collapse progression. The NIST model of collapse initiation in WTC1 proposes sagging trusses that pull in the south perimeter wall, leading to column buckling, eccentric loading then total column failure propagating across the impact zone.
Click to expand...
Nice digging.

So you were not actually talking about Dr. Q and addressing Elmondo's post?
 
ergo said:
DGM and El Mondo, you are very confused. NIST does not model collapse progression. The NIST model of collapse initiation in WTC1 proposes sagging trusses that pull in the south perimeter wall, leading to column buckling, eccentric loading then total column failure propagating across the impact zone.
Click to expand...

THIS is an answer to

this?:
The sag is what induces failure. Both Quintiere and NIST are clear about this; they only differ in detail regarding fireproofing. The truss unseating is the result of truss sag, and it's the sagging causing the unseating that is the overall failure mode! When the trusses sag, they pull the columns in. The connections are then stressed and bent and eventually they fail. And indeed, the recovered truss seats show signs of this very sort of distortion (NCSTAR 1-3C).

Sag is the first step in the failure sequence. This is understood. Why in God's name would someone even try to separate them?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom