• 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.

Care to Comment

tj15 said:
I know the south tower had a large tilt.

Would a tilt even show a jolt? Could a jolt go unnoticed on film and still be there?
Click to expand...

The presence of tilt will "smear" a jolt, possibly making it invisible. In the case of the WTC Towers we don't expect much of one.

Your second question is more interesting... sensitivity of your instruments and your method is always a concern.

tj15 said:
What about an experiment to test how much steel sags under certain temps, certain durations, and under certain weight stress?
Click to expand...

The mechanical properties of steel in response to temperature are extremely well documented. There are two effects you're interested in, one being "sag" caused by reduction in elastic modulus ("strength") while the steel is under load; the other is "creep" which is a different and complementary phenomenon.

The various reports on the WTC collapses use, and are consistent with, this hundreds-of-years-old body of research. Read some of them at wtc.nist.gov. Others are in journals, you'll need to go to the library for them.
 
I have heard there were tests done where there was a 3 inch sag (or something like that), but NIST (I'm not sure if it was NIST) made it into a 42 inch (or something like that) sag... What is that all about?
 
tj15 said:
I have heard there were tests done where there was a 3 inch sag (or something like that), but NIST (I'm not sure if it was NIST) made it into a 42 inch (or something like that) sag... What is that all about?
Click to expand...

It's about as confusing as hell...
 
tj15 said:
I have heard there were tests done where there was a 3 inch sag (or something like that), but NIST (I'm not sure if it was NIST) made it into a 42 inch (or something like that) sag... What is that all about?
Click to expand...
I think your confusion comes from NIST stopping test before failure (in order to not destroy the equipment) and predicting results based on the data up to that point. Models sometimes are controlled by economics (if the results don't demand) as much as pure science.
 
DGM said:
I think your confusion comes from NIST stopping test before failure (in order to not destroy the equipment) and predicting results based on the data up to that point. Models sometimes are controlled by economics (if the results don't demand) as much as pure science.
Click to expand...

Interesting? I had not heard this before. Where does NIST go into this?
 
DGM said:
I think your confusion comes from NIST stopping test before failure (in order to not destroy the equipment) and predicting results based on the data up to that point. Models sometimes are controlled by economics (if the results don't demand) as much as pure science.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that NIST got it to sag 3 inches, but stopped before it sagged further?
 
tj15 said:
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at there...

I'm looking more for a video of an experiment.
Click to expand...
That's why truthers never get anywhere. Looking for the easy way out.
That reference contains the properties for pretty much every metallic material, under every condition of load, thermal environment, and many corrosive environments, known to man.
It is the result of hundreds of years of experiments under all those conditions.
And you know something? They behave the same way, every time.
Every.
Single.
Time.
 
tj15 said:
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at there...

I'm looking more for a video of an experiment.
Click to expand...

It is slightly complicated.
It is not just metals, there are lots of other stuff too, so you have to look around a bit on your own.
(You could call it research)
It turns out that there are standards for electrical power systems onboard military vessels. :) (I find that both easier to understand and more interesting that metals behaviour.)

ETA: On second look the database is already turned to a 1733 page document on the behaviour of metals, you just have to click in the middle of the page instead of on the menu on the left. :)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't recall off the top of my head but, I do remember they abandoned the tests before failure.
Click to expand...
Ryan and others discussed that back in, I dunno, like 2003/2004.
Very good descriptions of the tests, but you actually have to research a bit to find 'em.
They are here somewhere. In the 911 sub-forum.
 
DGM said:
I don't recall off the top of my head but, I do remember they abandoned the tests before failure.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the scale tests of floor systems, they're contained in NCSTAR1-6B. NIST halted half of the tests when it appeared truss buckling was imminent, as they did not want to destroy the test cell.

tj15, I'm really not sure just what Truther confusion you're referring to. If you can clarify in more detail I'm sure I can explain it. Even their obfuscations are recycled at this point.

You should also consider reading the NIST Reports yourself. They're pretty well organized and not too hard to read -- just long.
 
R.Mackey said:
If you're talking about the scale tests of floor systems, they're contained in NCSTAR1-6B. NIST halted half of the tests when it appeared truss buckling was imminent, as they did not want to destroy the test cell.

tj15, I'm really not sure just what Truther confusion you're referring to. If you can clarify in more detail I'm sure I can explain it. Even their obfuscations are recycled at this point.

You should also consider reading the NIST Reports yourself. They're pretty well organized and not too hard to read -- just long.
Click to expand...

The confusion I'm talking about might have been said by Kevin Ryan. Something about tests that showed not enough sagging.
 
Kevin Ryan has said lots of dumb things. He figures prominently in my whitepaper, and he's never figured it out even though that was over three years ago...
 
I'm not watching 45 minutes of any video waiting for a question. Particularly coming from someone to whom I've already devoted several pages in print, and found no sign of intellectual competence.

If you have a question, by all means, ask.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm not watching 45 minutes of any video waiting for a question. Particularly coming from someone to whom I've already devoted several pages in print, and found no sign of intellectual competence.

If you have a question, by all means, ask.
Click to expand...

The part about the sagging starts (I think) at around 44 mins. My question is basically what did Kevin Ryan get wrong regarding the sagging?

I would have to watch it again, but I think he says something like the sagging was minimal (I think in non-computer tests), but NIST (I think in a computer model) said the sagging was over 40 inches.
 
tj15 said:
The part about the sagging starts (I think) at around 44 mins. My question is basically what did Kevin Ryan get wrong regarding the sagging?

I would have to watch it again, but I think he says something like the sagging was minimal (I think in non-computer tests), but NIST (I think in a computer model) said the sagging was over 40 inches.
Click to expand...

This is not clear enough for me to respond to. I'm sure he's just comparing apples to oranges, but you need to tell me specifically what your confusion is. Unless, that is, you're not really interested.

Again, I invite you to read the NIST reports yourself. There's no such discrepancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom