[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

Alferd_Packer said:
What would the degradation of the dampers have done? They were nothing more than fancy rubber bands.

http://www.debunking911.com/sn1.jpg

more photos here: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Why would they have applied fireproofing to the dampers? I'm sure they were covered with overspray during the original application, but you don't seriously think that the SFRM would have stayed attached, do you?
Click to expand...

I have no idea where he's going with this. It is a straw man, intended to obfuscate the issue and make the original argument seem intillegent. We might as well argue that the NIST report did not consider the effects of the poo in the toilets.
The dynamics (vibration characteristics) of the building were only significant during the first few seconds after the aircraft hit them, in dissipating what energy was transferred directly to the building as a unit. The dampers are not, repeat, NOT structural in nature--by structural, I mean they carried none of the building loads. They simply acted as the "shock absorbers" on your car do while driving down a good road--they reduced the oscillations on the building to zero over a short time.
The Damping is a true straw man argument. It has nothing to do with what happened.
 
Last edited:
Max Photon's puts a damper on rwgwinn's damper on Apollo20's dampers.

rwguinn said:
I have no idea where he's going with this. It is a straw man, intended to obfuscate the issue and make the original argument seem intillegent. We might as well argue that the NIST report did not consider the effects of the poo in the toilets.
The dynamics (vibration characteristics) of the building were only significant during the first few seconds after the aircraft hit them, in dissipating what energy was transferred directly to the building as a unit. The dampers are not, repeat, NOT structural in nature--by structural, I mean they carried none of the building loads. They simply acted as the "shock absorbers" on your car do while driving down a good road--they reduced the oscillations on the building to zero over a short time.
The Damping is a true straw man argument. It has nothing to do with what happened.
Click to expand...



Ahem....


Thermite, wrapped in paper and black plastic, placed at gusset seats, and ignited with Max Photon-brand thermite-dusted shock-tube, heat-weakened the connections.


The thermite caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, producing dark black smoke, which masked the white aluminum-oxide ash from the burning thermite.

This is the source of NIST's 7 bizarre one-minute smoke release episodes on the east face of WTC2, not pools of jet fuel (pools of jet fuel...good grief!)


But wait!

The failure of the dampers caused the floors to sag.

The sagging floors are essential to NIST's sissy little pre-engineered narrative that fires caused floors to sag which pulled perimeter columns inward, thereby initiating the collapse of WTC2.


So put a damper on it. Those damn things do matter.


Apollo20, please...proceed.


Max Photon

The guy doing donuts on JREF's front lawn.

---
 
Max Photon said:
Max Photon

The guy doing donuts on JREF's front lawn.

---
Click to expand...
I'll thank you to clean up that powdered sugar off of my grass.

Now away with you before I toss a Max Photon-brand thermite-dusted shock-tube in your direction. :)
 
Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!
 
Apollo20 said:
Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!
Click to expand...
Frank;
Wouldn't that only be a problem if the fire proofing was removed from the truss? Considering the damper carries no structural load.
 
DGM said:
Frank;
Wouldn't that only be a problem if the fire proofing was removed from the truss? Considering the damper carries no structural load.
Click to expand...
The way I read that, he's postulating the dampers as essentially "Guy wires"!!!!!????? :dl:
 
Last edited:
Yes thanks Max for helping with Greenings theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the role of planted Thermite in the collapse of the towers...lol

TAM;)
 
Civilized Worm said:
What is Greening's theory anyway?
Click to expand...
That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.
 
WildCat said:
That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.
Click to expand...
No.. It is simply that engineers are hacks who can't add 2+2 and get the same answer 2 out of 3.
And they are out to get him.
He has demonstrated that his knowledge of loads, load paths, and design are a real number times
__
\/-1
 
interestingly enough, although zinc embrittlement of carbon steel seems not to be a major concern (all references point to 300 series CRES, or stainless as the problem material with zinc), this article mentions Copper embrittlement at 1100 C.
However, this article deals with sustained high-temperature environments as in refineries.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your interest in the problem of the aircraft impact momentum transfer to the Twin Towers. Having come this far you must all surely agree that NIST plays fast and loose with the dispositioning of the aircraft impact energy, especially for the side-swipe of UA flight-175 to WTC 2. That's o.k., we are only talking about models after all, but I would just like the self-identified NISTIANS on this forum, (you all know who you are), to admit this one little point and we can move on!

NIST analyse the aircraft impacts in two different ways. In NCSTAR 1-2 the elastic energy absorbed by the towers is all but ignored, while in NCSTAR 1-5D it is included and considered to be distributed over 1/6th of the tower's floors for a total of 18 floors! And yet we know that some of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was converted into the energy of vibration of the whole building! Now the towers had the capacity to absorb some of this energy elastically, but how much? Well, take a look at NIST's data for the post-impact displacements of the window lines of WTC 2, etc, as given in NCSTAR 1-5A. Then consider the torsional stiffness of the tower, (and let's not forget those pesky viscoelastic dampers) ..... and remember NIST says that after the aircraft impact about 10 % of the building mass was moving with a velocity of about 13 m/s. 13 m/s !!!!!!

In the end, none of this story adds up unless the towers were a friggin baseball mit!
 
Max Photon watches NIST burn rubber.

Apollo20 said:
Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!
Click to expand...



Francois,


Another way of looking at it is that the uninsulated visco-elastic dampers presented an exploitable susceptibility.

And exploited they were!


All you NIST-lickers out there ought to do a little readin' in the Good Book of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

If you can't see the attack on the visco-elastic dampers in that report, you are B-L-I-N-D.

(Seven identical episodes of burning pools of jet fuel - each for one minute plus or minus a few seconds.....what a bunch of morons.)


Max

---

Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Photon said:
13.) NIST fails to explain WTC2's 10 minute metal fire seen burning at Column 301, 2/3 up the Floor 81 window.

14.) NIST struggles to explain the 7 major WTC2 smoke releases, all with timings of 1 minute plus or minus a few seconds.

15.) NIST does not explain the numerous WTC2 "pressure pulses" and "smoke puffs" that zip across the facade reminiscent of a steam pipe organ.

16.) NIST - in a disjointed manner - says that the WTC2's smoke releases, pressure pulses, smoke puffs, fire flare-ups, debris falling, metal flows, and hanging objects seen through open windows changing locations, are correlated, and probably related to a common underlying source, yet the NISTies shrink from an explanation.

17.) NIST ignores the white flashes on the facades (that Max Photon says are from thermite-dusted shock-tube).

18.) NIST does not explain the two grey "wires" seen attached to one of recovered steel member N8's floor truss seats.

19) NIST examined no perimeter panels exposed to fire from WTC2's fire-affected zones on the east and north faces, despite the utterly bizarre descriptions of the highly unusual fire behaviors of WTC2.

20.) NIST does not provide a good explanation for WTC2's magic fire in the 81/NE corner.

21.) NIST never sent Max Photon a fruit basket. Instead, they told him to FAQ off, then referred him here.

---
Click to expand...


If someone were to send Max Photon a fruit basket, would Max be willing to take NIST's thoughtful advice?
 
Max Photon recommends five serving of fruit per day, to keep the NISTians away.

---

Palmrue,

You missed the joke.

THIS is the fruit basket.

Max

---
 
Apollo20 said:
Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!
Click to expand...


Aha! So it wasn't the salmon mousse after all!
 
Pomeroo:

Trivializing the question of possible design flaws in the Twin Towers wont make them go away.
 
Apollo20 said:
especially for the side-swipe of UA flight-175 to WTC 2.
Click to expand...
Ah, so now 175 sideswiped WTC 2? So it was real-time CGI effects that only made it appear that the entire plane from wingtip to wingtip struck the tower? Perhaps you and Ace Baker could producer a paper on this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom