• 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

R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

My question is why do the physical tests show sagging of a few inches (unless there is something I don't know about the picture that had NIST listed as the source), but the computer model shows sagging over 40 inches (Ryan's claim about NIST)?
 
Because the computer model and the physical tests are simulating radically different conditions. Kevin Ryan is either being stupid or dishonest -- he's shown evidence of both in his Truther career, so I don't know which it is this time.

If you want a more specific answer, ask a more specific question.
 
R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since this is not your area of expertise, please explain, rather than state your opinion as if it were a fact.

MM
 
R.Mackey said:
Because the computer model and the physical tests are simulating radically different conditions. Kevin Ryan is either being stupid or dishonest -- he's shown evidence of both in his Truther career, so I don't know which it is this time.

If you want a more specific answer, ask a more specific question.
Click to expand...

Can you explain the part in bold?
 
tj15 said:
Can you explain the part in bold?
Click to expand...

The four tests that were conducted were on 35 ft and 17 ft trusses. They included the spray on protection in the assembly being tested. The spans in the towers were up to 60 ft. The tests were conducted on a couple of spans of trusses, not the entire width of the towers floors. A couple of the tests used unrestrained assemblies.
 
Animal said:
The four tests that were conducted were on 35 ft and 17 ft trusses. They included the spray on protection in the assembly being tested. The spans in the towers were up to 60 ft. The tests were conducted on a couple of spans of trusses, not the entire width of the towers floors. A couple of the tests used unrestrained assemblies.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that NIST did not try to replicate the situation in physical tests?
 
rwguinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

tj15 said:
So, you are saying that NIST did not try to replicate the situation in physical tests?
Click to expand...
Why? Just in case the material behaved differently this time?
 
tj15 said:
Can you explain the part in bold?
Click to expand...

What is the matter with you?

I said, several times, I need to understand what specific claim you are curious about. Don't tell me it "might have" been something Kevin Ryan once said. Don't tell me to watch a 45 minute video and it might be in there. Tell me what the specific claim is, or don't bother.

So far your complaint boils down to "some guy said NIST was wrong about something." I can't react to that. Do your homework.

This is my last attempt.
 
R.Mackey said:
What is the matter with you?

I said, several times, I need to understand what specific claim you are curious about. Don't tell me it "might have" been something Kevin Ryan once said. Don't tell me to watch a 45 minute video and it might be in there. Tell me what the specific claim is, or don't bother.

So far your complaint boils down to "some guy said NIST was wrong about something." I can't react to that. Do your homework.

This is my last attempt.
Click to expand...

Were there two different sizes of trusses used in the WTC?
 
tj15 said:
Were there two different sizes of trusses used in the WTC?
Click to expand...

rwguinn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Next...
 
R.Mackey said:
http://wtc.nist.gov

Done playing your games, pal.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to play games... I know it is probably an obvious question, but I have never really researched the specifics about the construction of the wtc. From what I have seen, there were 2 different length trusses. I was making sure this was accurate. 35 ft and 60 ft, correct?

This is where Kevin Ryan seems to be wrong... Like you said, I think he is comparing apples and oranges.

My whole point is to figure out what Kevin Ryan is talking about. He makes the claim that the physical tests show minimal sagging and that the computer models show a larger sag (assuming I am understanding what Ryan is even saying).

I completely admit that I have not done a lot of research into the NIST tests and I am not an engineer. So, I'm not really too sure what questions to even ask.
 
tj15 said:
I'm not trying to play games... I know it is probably an obvious question, but I have never really researched the specifics about the construction of the wtc. From what I have seen, there were 2 different length trusses. I was making sure this was accurate. 35 ft and 60 ft, correct?

This is where Kevin Ryan seems to be wrong... Like you said, I think he is comparing apples and oranges.

My whole point is to figure out what Kevin Ryan is talking about. He makes the claim that the physical tests show minimal sagging and that the computer models show a larger sag (assuming I am understanding what Ryan is even saying).

I completely admit that I have not done a lot of research into the NIST tests and I am not an engineer. So, I'm not really too sure what questions to even ask.
Click to expand...

Read back through the thread,you will find your answers.
 
For joists that are attached to supporting columns in the core, how would you measure deflection differently... would you treat the span as the length from the perimeter column to supporting column?
 
tj15 said:
So, you are saying that NIST did not try to replicate the situation in physical tests?
Click to expand...

The tests were t designed to validate the rated assemblies. The 17 ft spans were a comparison to standard tests previously performed. The tests also showed temperatures both at the surface and beneath the fire proof application. The results of these tests then can be used to verify the computer models.
 
tj15 said:
I'm not trying to play games... I know it is probably an obvious question, but I have never really researched the specifics about the construction of the wtc. From what I have seen, there were 2 different length trusses. I was making sure this was accurate. 35 ft and 60 ft, correct?

This is where Kevin Ryan seems to be wrong... Like you said, I think he is comparing apples and oranges.

My whole point is to figure out what Kevin Ryan is talking about. He makes the claim that the physical tests show minimal sagging and that the computer models show a larger sag (assuming I am understanding what Ryan is even saying).

I completely admit that I have not done a lot of research into the NIST tests and I am not an engineer. So, I'm not really too sure what questions to even ask.
Click to expand...

nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.cfm

fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042.pdf

( I can;t post a full link yet)
 
dafydd said:
And what is your area of expertise? What qualifications do you have?
Click to expand...

When someone (R. Mackey), is not professionally qualified to state categorically that another person's statement is in error, then they should produce documentation to support their argument.

Not being a religious person, I am unwilling to accept Mackey's opinion on faith alone.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom