Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[triforcharity]

Do you wish to recite from your textbook or engage in the discussion?

The image I provided above is a dramatic example of the NIST's failure to back up their computer modeled fire scenario with empiric evidence. In this case, the empiric evidence (photograph of the same time and location) totally contradicts the NIST model.

This is not a case of the model requiring additional data. The model bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Who puts huge fire loads below a very large window?

(Hint: Nobody)

That is the BIGGEST problem with Chris Sarns' "example". Most of a fuel load in a room is not near the window. That obstructs people's views.

What is burning right at the wall area in Chris Sarns' example?

Hint: You have no idea, because he didn't use typical fuel loading data to make his MS Paint picture. He also did know fuel distrubution to account for what would be right near the window. Which, would be next to nothing, compared to the middle of the room, or the other parts of the room.

What Chris Sarns has basically done, is draw a cool picture of where the biggst flames were.

How.....unscientific.

 

[leftysergeant]

And this name calling of people more accomplished than yourself.

Sarns is more accomplished than I?

 

[beachnut]

... In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining. ...
MM

Are you a structural engineer? If you were, you would not be presenting moronic work, and attempt to back in CD, thermite and other failed claims. You don't understand fire, thermodynamic or why aircraft brakes will burst into flame 15 minutes after they exceeded maximum energy limits. Good luck. Why can't Gage's followers, as in cult members, figure out WTC 7 and 911?

 

[leftysergeant]

In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining.

Why? The heat is still travelling through the steel that had been exposed to fire, causing expansion there.

If the NIST hypothesis was true, column 79 should have failed earlier, in conjunction with the peak fire activity in the designated failure zone.

Why? THe local heating is not that likely to cause enoguh expansion by itself to do the job. The more of the beam gets heated, the more force it will exert on the critical connections.

But, according to the NIST's own documentation, despite diminishing fire activity on the critical floor 12, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. critical steel kept expanding to the point of critical instability and buckling.

So? It was still contributing heat to the process of expanding the girders.

 

[tfk]

You've ignored the omnipotent path of least resistance.

The scale of 9/11 justice for your hypothesis.

You fail.

And you haven't the slightest clue what you are yammering about. <SNIP>
I didn't ignore anything that you said. The "path of least resistance" or "path of most resistance" or "path of any resistance in between" has precisely zero place in anything that I said.

<SNIP>

Meanwhile, I've got 37 years experience, working every day & collecting sizeable paychecks, as a mechanical engineer. If I don't do that job really well, I get fired. Darwin says that I do that job well.

<SNIP>

[W]hy don't you tell me where the force comes from to push the top of the building off to the side, how big that force has to be, and what the two criteria are in order for the upper block to tip off to the side.

<SNIP>

I'll understand completely.

<SNIP>

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

tk

 

[tfk]

MM,

You failed to answer my observation.

Sarns, the home improvement salesman, part time deck framer and ex-rock & roll roadie, has precisely zero capability to generate ANY of the internal details of his "temperature maps". He made up all the internal details (i.e., 99%) of his maps.

Why don't you go ask him about that.

Boy, that's really special, ain't it...?!

I believe the NIST said they believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote exactly what NIST really said, instead of making it up.

Meanwhile, yup, they are.
"Accurate" being a relative term that you probably don't understand.
[See ** below.]

When it is shown that they are not…

Which you have not done.

Because you don't understand the limits of precision, the purpose or the information that experienced engineers would derive from such simulations.

[See ** below]

… it would seem only fair to seriously doubt the validity of any hypothesis based on such erroneous modeling.

No, that ain't "fair". It is merely "pleasing to you".

The NIST hypothesis is critically dependent on how the fire behaved on floor 12.

No, it ain't.

They represent the fact that the actual exterior fire activity is no where even close to resembling the NIST model.

Wrong. They are close.

Close enough.

The competent engineers at NIST said so.

They are right.

You are wrong.

* They are right because they are all highly educated, extremely experienced, extremely competent engineers who have spent their lives doing exactly this type of analysis.

** You are wrong because you have zero pertinent education, zero pertinent experience, and have never in your life attempted any sort of analysis like this one.

And in the NIST Figure 9-11 below, which shows the computer model for floor 12 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., the modeling problem becomes even more serious.

No, it ain't more serious in the slightest.

The experienced engineers at NIST said so.

See * & ** above.

In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining.

Wrongo, buckeroo.

You clearly don't understand the principles of thermodynamics. That's not very surprising, considering ** above.

But, presuming that you know what your undefined term "heat" really means (somehow I doubt it) ...

… the amount of heat generated by an internal fire can be declining, and the thermal expansion of the nearby beams & columns can be increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.

[Another example of ** above.]

Nice try, tho...

If the NIST hypothesis was true, column 79 should have failed earlier, in conjunction with the peak fire activity in the designated failure zone. But, according to the NIST's own documentation, despite diminishing fire activity on the critical floor 12, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. critical steel kept expanding to the point of critical instability and buckling.

You're wrong.

The competent engineers at NIST said so.

They are right.

You're not.

See * & ** above.

Always a pleasure to help you out with this stuff, MM.


tk

 

[Animal]

In an environment where the amount of heat was declining, thermal expansion should also be declining. If the NIST hypothesis was true, column 79 should have failed earlier, in conjunction with the peak fire activity in the designated failure zone. But, according to the NIST's own documentation, despite diminishing fire activity on the critical floor 12, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. critical steel kept expanding to the point of critical instability and buckling.

MM

Column 79 did not fail from fire / thermal expansion, it failed from lack of lateral support. Heating that caused the failure of the lateral support need not be anywhere near Col.79.

 

[Animal]

I believe the NIST said they believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality.
MM

You believe falsely

What the NIST actually said.

"Although the visual evidence for WTC 7 was not nearly as extensive as for WTC 1 and WTC 2, the fire simulations did exploit as much as possible the few photographs showing the location of severe fire activity in WTC 7 at various times during the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Compared to the actual fires, the simulated files followed the same general paths and, as evidenced by the validation experiments reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E, generated comparable temperatures to those in the fire tests. The simulations of the 12 floor fires (and thus the derivative 11 and 13 floor fires) may have mildly overestimated the duration of the fires and the fraction of the burning near the north face windows, relative to the burning in the interior of the tenant space.
The output from the fire simulations of the 7th, 8th, and 12th floors, along with the time-shifted output for the 9th, 11th, and 13th floors, was used as the input for the building thermal response calculations presented in the next chapter."

Page 387 NCSTAR 1-9

 

[000063]

Are you suggesting that those thousands of ASCE members have read the NIST WTC reports?

And that each and every one are up to date on the subject of 9/11 and have gone on the public record to say so, just like the 1600+ architects and engineers who publicly signed the AE911Truth petition?

MM

I'm suggesting that the lack of any known outcry among the ASCE as to NIST's conclusion is indicative of people in ASCE largely not disagreeing with NIST's conclusion.

Are you saying everyone in AE911T has read the NIST report?
Are you saying no one in the ASCE has read the NIST report?
If you are not saying that, then how many people in the ASCE have read the report? Cite, plz.

I note you ignored the part about the millions of professionals. AE911T represents less than a percentage of all As and Es. That would indicate, quite simply, that they're wrong.

 

[grandmastershek]

Maybe the A&E's over there should make a public statement citing civil disobedience in refusing to implement any of NIST's recommendations which the ICC has adopted?

 

[chrismohr]

NIST's conclusions are more than pretty lines on paper. They've led to changes in the buildings codes which have a tangible impact on professional practice, requiring new design constraints which increase construction costs across the board isn't something a firm enjoys doing when the changes are unnecessary. Yet Gage seems to pay very little attention to those. I always wonder if he thinks the professional community he believes to be ignorant would sit quietly to something like that. The loss of work obviously must not be an issue if the government hasn't taken special measure to silence his movement.

So this has turned from a lengthy argument requiring basic knowledge of professional practice and insight into building construction to semantics, ignorance, and this "faith" that all controlled demolition opponents were accused of committing.

Irony anyone?

You might be interested to know that in my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, I asked him if he thought NIST's safety recommendations (which were quickly taken up by the international building community in the form of new guidleines and regulations) were a waste of money. He said yes, they were a waste of money. "That really scares me," I said. "I think my safety and the safety of everyone in this room is not a waste of money."

 

[Miragememories]

"I believe the NIST said they believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality."

"You believe falsely

What the NIST actually said..."

So to believe that "the NIST believed their computer models to be a fair and accurate representation of reality" is a false belief?

That in essence, the NIST believed their computer models were an unfair and inaccurate representation of reality?

Yes, I can accept that interpretation.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"You might be interested to know that in my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, I asked him if he thought NIST's safety recommendations (which were quickly taken up by the international building community in the form of new guidleines and regulations) were a waste of money. He said yes, they were a waste of money. "That really scares me," I said. "I think my safety and the safety of everyone in this room is not a waste of money."

I am sure that Bush considered the hugely expensive invasion of Iraq to be an investment in your safety as well as the safety of everyone, but most would agree that making such a decision on a false analysis was a huge mistake.

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

They would have made a mockery of their WTC7 collapse analysis if they didn't produce building construction safety recommendations in response.

Obviously, Richard Gage quite understood this, even if you do not.

MM

 

[DGM]

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

MM

Can you point to these please?

 

[Oystein]

You might be interested to know that in my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, I asked him if he thought NIST's safety recommendations (which were quickly taken up by the international building community in the form of new guidleines and regulations) were a waste of money. He said yes, they were a waste of money. ...

This suggests a new line of activism that might be a lot more effective than anything Gage has done so far:

Why doesn't he target those in the building industry who get to pay this wasted money? The developers? I am sure anyone who is right now developing a high rise anywhere in the world where the NIST recommendations have been implemented would be very interested in learning that he is wasting money and would be able to pressure important people (structural engineers and their professional associations) into revisiting the NIST reports. There'd be a multi-billion motivation to believe Gage and his brave 1600!

Why is that not happening? Or is it?

ETA:

...
Obviously, Richard Gage quite understood this, even if you do not.
...

Obviously, Richard Gage doesn't exploit this. We are not hearing from those who foot the bill.

 

[DGM]

This suggests a new line of activism that might be a lot more effective than anything Gage has done so far:

Why doesn't he target those in the building industry who get to pay this wasted money? The developers? I am sure anyone who is right now developing a high rise anywhere in the world where the NIST recommendations have been implemented would be very interested in learning that he is wasting money and would be able to pressure important people (structural engineers and their professional associations) into revisiting the NIST reports. There'd be a multi-billion motivation to believe Gage and his brave 1600!

Why is that not happening? Or is it?

ETA:

Obviously, Richard Gage doesn't exploit this. We are not hearing from those who foot the bill.

I think the reason these people are not listening to Gage is, It's hard to respect an Architect that says something is obvious but, had to be told this by a Theologian.


(not to mention the fact they hire their own engineers to tell them what's right)

 

[Seymour Butz]

With everything said already, your best bet for levying criticism against the accuracy of the report is to look at the information they based their changes on.

.

I find it most interesting that MM will make note of these changes, and then offer zero evidence that IF a certain number of studs were actually used, then thermal expansion couldn't have taken place.

But every issue is the same with these guys. They make an argument about x, y ,z, being suspicious in the NIST report. But that's as far as it goes. No reason is ever put forth as to just WHY there suspicions have merit, and aren't just them "listening to their ear crickets".

Personally, I'd listen IF their argument went something like this:

1- inclusion of studs would have helped resist thermal expansion by x amount

2- a more accurate fire simulation would have resulted in lower gas temps.

3- the beam, under these corrected conditions, would have had less thermal expansion, and the girder to col 79 connection wouldn't have failed.

4- here are my maths..........

Never seen it though.

 

[NoahFence]

MM -
Chris Sarns is a moron. He's wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

Anybody who takes this guy's word over the word of actual professionals is severely lacking in good judgement.

 

[NoahFence]

I am sure that Bush considered the hugely expensive invasion of Iraq to be an investment in your safety as well as the safety of everyone, but most would agree that making such a decision on a false analysis was a huge mistake.

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

They would have made a mockery of their WTC7 collapse analysis if they didn't produce building construction safety recommendations in response.

Obviously, Richard Gage quite understood this, even if you do not.

MM

Buildings have already been built using info from the NIST report. One of these buildings burned and did not collapse. This is proof that the information from the NIST report was put into practice and WORKED.

End of discussion.

(well, for rational people at least)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You might be interested to know that in my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, I asked him if he thought NIST's safety recommendations (which were quickly taken up by the international building community in the form of new guidleines and regulations) were a waste of money. He said yes, they were a waste of money. "That really scares me," I said. "I think my safety and the safety of everyone in this room is not a waste of money."

In your debate with him did he tell anything about what he was doing as as his group was concerned about the code changes? Personally, while I understand he's trying to "raise awareness" with the public he would probably want to engage with professionals even more given that they're amongst the most affected. I know you or someone else brought this up up recently, I just haven't seen any mention of his criticisms of code recommendations elsewhere.