• 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.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
So your admitting they couldn't recreate the situation in the world trade center. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Kinda' hard to recreate 110 stories in a laboratory. But then, I feel the concept of "scale" is lost on you.

And explain to me how testing the fireproofing would require a recreation of the entire situation? Have you read the NIST reports? There are numerous sections that break down the numerous aspects of that day.

It's called a scientific investigation.

Tell me, during an autopsy of a shooting victim, is it necessary for the coroner to put a bullet in the head of his assistant in order to determine the cause of death?
 
Docker said:
Thanks for linking to something in which NIST admits it couldn't get a floor assembly to collapse, even after 2 hours of exposure.
Click to expand...
They were testing the fireproofing to see if it met the ASTM standard. It did.

They were ruling out design failures. It was not a test of the conditions on Sept. 11, including massive structural damage and dislodged fireproofing.
 
realitybites said:
How dense are you? They were experimenting to estimate the amount of force that would be required to remove the fireproofing from the steel.

Shotgun pellets against a square of steel is a scaled down version of 767 debris traveling at 500+ miles per hour through a skyscraper.
Click to expand...

Yah! I agree realitybites!, and if you consider the NIST test fire and heat was a "normal" fire situation and not many thousands of pounds of jet fuel, the test could be considered mostly valid... maybe not exact ,but within an order of mag.

For the test to be more accurate maybe the NIST should have shot it all up with a .50 cal then threw a few hunderd pounds of fuel on it then shot it up more to ignite it. That might be more realistic.??? Maybe thats what Docker is implying?? (I don't want to speak for docker though)! a large aircraft has mucho kinetic energy to boot!! not to metion all that fuel!

lh
 
luvhumility said:
Yah! I agree realitybites!, and if you consider the NIST test fire and heat was a "normal" fire situation and not many thousands of pounds of jet fuel, the test could be considered mostly valid... maybe not exact ,but within an order of mag.

For the test to be more accurate maybe the NIST should have shot it all up with a .50 cal then threw a few hunderd pounds of fuel on it then shot it up more to ignite it. That might be more realistic.??? Maybe thats what Docker is implying?? (I don't want to speak for docker though)! a large aircraft has mucho kinetic energy to boot!! not to metion all that fuel!


lh
Click to expand...

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.
 
Docker said:
Am I dealing with children here?
Click to expand...
No. Why are you talking about someone's sig instead of the topic you brought up?

chipmunk stew said:
They were testing the fireproofing to see if it met the ASTM standard. It did.

They were ruling out design failures. It was not a test of the conditions on Sept. 11, including massive structural damage and dislodged fireproofing.
Click to expand...

chipmunk stew said:
You can use whatever you like--doesn't have to be a shotgun. How would you set it up?
Click to expand...
 
Docker said:
The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.
Click to expand...

Source?

And proof that they are making things up? Are you a scientist?
 
And while you're answering Chipmunk's questions, don't forget mine:

Tell me, during an autopsy of a shooting victim, is it necessary for the coroner to put a bullet in the head of his assistant in order to determine the cause of death?
Click to expand...
 
Docker said:
Because some have lymphomas. Am I dealing with children here?
Click to expand...

No. But it seems that you are behaving like a petulant child. Stamp your foot, hold your breath and refuse to believe anything that contradicts your fantasies.
 
Docker said:
If I need to explain this to you then there really is no hope son.
Click to expand...

No really, you should, because saying lymphoma is no evidence for me pissing on anyone's graves. It was actually a post a guy made in this thread actually. Either this or another one. But it was on the subject of bombs causing lymphoma, and I found it quite funny. And no I wasn't laughing at the workers who have lymphoma so there's no reason to accuse me of that.
 
Docker said:
Are you a scientist? Judging by your picture, I would say student.
Click to expand...

Not the point. Stop side-stepping and please inform me on how the NIST report wasn't correctly done in a scientific manner.
 
I think that the fact that the buildings held up that long is incredible! The design engineers should be proud! Many lives were saved in those fatefull hours... Now we learn and move on...(better fireproofing will be implemented I am sure) Its the security lapse's in our own security agencies and the lack of proper communication and evacuation procedures that bother me most. Those issues are being addressed also... All being considered, They all did the best they could.
 
The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.
Click to expand...

What was the internal temperature in the impacted floors IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom