[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA
- Thread starter Apollo20
- Start date
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
Apollo20 and Zensmack:
Your strawman argument has been shown to be just that, so why not give it a rest. You both know very well that the JREF CT subforum does not hold the NIST report as perfect. I doubt, as Toto has asked, that you could find one person who feels the NIST is beyond reproach. Frank, despite numerous concessions by numerous people here that the NIST is imperfect, you continue your own personal campaign to smear the people of this forum, some directly, others indirectly so through your continued bad mouthing of "JREFers" and "NISTIANS" as you have labeled them.
Since you find this forum useless from a scientific pov, why do you bother? Does it relieve tension for you? Does it fill some other need? I haven't said much to you about this lately, as you have been "reasonable", but now it seems you have begun again. I hope this taunting and game playing will once again be short lived.
TerryUK:
Not really sure why you took up the "Greening" defense, but I guess fair is fair, as often times we will stick up for others here. I would advise you to read all of Apollo20's posts, to get a better idea of how long he has been playing this game.
TAM
I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
"The only perfect person who ever lived got himself nailed to a tree..." author unknown.
Perfection is what we strive for-and never achieve.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Use the search function. There have been a number of threads relevant to things people have found wrong, so why start listing them agin in this one.
Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:
1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.
1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.
ok, I am not sure if I am a NISTIAN on your list or not, but I will answer your quibbles...(addressed with their number a the beginning)
1. This is the best available theory at the time. No, of course they did not have any physical evidence to give a percentage for amount of removal of fire proofing removed. I think they based it on the amount of force and subsequent movement of the buildings. There were, IIRC witnesses who said that they observed fireproofing fall off with minimal force (I cannot remember the exact circumstances off the top of my head). They also, likely, worked backwards (I know, not a good way to do things), noting that the buildings did collapse, and that through there modeling, fireproofing would have had to have been removed for the buildings to fall. This, as well as other heat sources contributing has lead to considerable disagreement here, which I think is an area that could use further study.
2. Molten Metal in the towers, to me, is not an issue. If you have a reason why you think the study of it is important to BUILDING SAFETLY, please provide it here.
3. I am not sure about the Chlorine aspect, but they did address the sulfidation, they may not have OFFERED and explanation, as they may not have HAD ONE.
4. I have not studied this area sufficient to comment on whether or not they ADDRESSED the corrosion/erosion effects or not.
5. regarding the allegation of providing CONTRADICTORY theories etc...on tilt, please provide the two contradictory element page numbers...
6. If they did not include torsional energy disipation, and if it is significant in terms of collapse initiation, then they should have.
7. I have stated elsewhere that your theories and investigations into alternate sources of heat via various elements within the buildings is a VALID area that warrants further investigation.
8. I was not aware the welding and steel were distinctly different. If these two factors could potentially have effected the collapse initiation, then it should have been explored and/or explained.
9. Well the truthers would have us believe there was no concrete left to test, appart from that of 60 microns in size, but given I know this to be bullcrap, I would say that you should explain how this would have an effect on either hastening or slowing of the collapse initiation, for this to be relevant.
10. did they conduct an investigation for the use of BEAM WEAPONS? did they conduct an investigation for Thermite? What else should they look for?
11. Not up on this area enough to comment.
12. Perhaps not, but to imply that they should have, indicates that they had the evidence/data, and variables to do so but failed to, and also suggests that it would have had major impact on the analysis of the initiation...is this the case?
TAM
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
No on will ever call me a JREFer but here's an interesting discrepancy that I noticed recently.
In NCSTAR1-5D, NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). This would mean that only 34% of the KE is left to actually damage the building, unless of course the movement of the building caused damage.
I find nowhere else in NIST, including the 1-2 Airplane Impact Analysis series, that this is taken into account. In fact, they compare the NIST results to Wierzbicki's study which applied the entire energy to destroying the airplane and damaging the building and had fairly similar results.
My conclusion is that we have no way to judge the validity of the impact analysis because we are lacking information on how they actually did it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
On the contrary- you were asserting that many people claim it is perfect- that due to the fact that it was done by experts, it's untouchable. Since you were unable to provide a single example of this, your claim is false.
Additionally, it's not that I (or anyone else for that matter) said that the NIST report is entirely flawed- as skeptics we are necessarily holding the position that science could very easily prove any particular claim within the NIST report to be false- or even less plausible.
Again, you seem to be unable to understand the difference between skepticism and faith. The differences are huge.
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Only Apollo20 can make that distinction. Everyone else is forbidden from calling anyone a JREFer or NISTian. How he makes that distinction is a complete mystery, however- but it's best left to the Gods, anyway.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Here is one of the areas that I feel was missed the NIST report.
Early on, they mention the process of alterations based on tenant requests, with a brief discussion of changes made by those occupying multiple floors. These would include private stairwells, other internal dividers (demising walls), or removal of existing dividers. A note was made that when a private survey of code violations was made prior to 2001, nearly all of them involved floors with a single tenant.
The recommendations at the end of the report discuss training for tenants on life safety systems, and seemed to dismiss the liability of tenant-requested alterations. The burden is placed on the property owner to maintain all documentation of modifications made, but there are often documentation ownership issues when it is the tenant initiating and contracting the work.
I feel this should have been addressed in the report.
Seeing this has nothing at all to do with any of the conspiracy theories, but everything to do with building codes and standards, you will probably find it monumentally uninteresting, so cherry-pick away.
GregoryUrich:
See my post #185 where I say more or less the same thing as you:
"NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete."
TAM:
I have discussed the tipping anomalies in the NIST Report in a paper on www.911myths.com
Totovader:
When you say "jewels of knowledge from Greening", nice to know my work is appreciated
See my post #185 where I say more or less the same thing as you:
"NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete."
TAM:
I have discussed the tipping anomalies in the NIST Report in a paper on www.911myths.com
Totovader:
When you say "jewels of knowledge from Greening", nice to know my work is appreciated
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
I would think it would be painfully clear at this point what work is not appreciated and why. Contrary to what you might want to accuse anyone of- your entire body of work is not the discussion, here.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
No, this I think is valid considering all the things the NIST report did cover.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
Yes and this has been address a few time I just can't remember at the moment where and when I originally read about it. In any case it’s something that’s been pointed out by others and of course always leads to how much of the fireproofing would have been sheered off and how much the core would have been damaged depending on what kind of energy was left.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
This might have been one of the things I read not that you would agree with it. This is what Kevin Ryan claims in reference to what might have been left over to remove the fire-proofing...
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?
The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
•NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
Here's a debate on the deceleration of the plane if you’re interested with some video overlays…
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Apollo20;
I'm not qualified to access all of this but I do have an observation.
The critics (you included) have had 2 years to review the findings and scrutinize every little detail. This to me should certainly yield small discrepancies or omissions.
The question I have is was the report in your opinion relatively accurate for the job they were tasked to do?
I know that years from now people will build off of the findings in this report as they should. Is this a good base to do this type of thing?
Bottom line. Were they in your opinion correct in there findings? ( not off by much)
Frank:
Here is the description at 911myths of your "tilting" paper...
Any chance you can give us a quasi laymen summary of the arguments, and how NIST contradicts itself, for myself, who has good but very old and unused math skills, as well as for others not math inclined?
TAM
Here is the description at 911myths of your "tilting" paper...
Any chance you can give us a quasi laymen summary of the arguments, and how NIST contradicts itself, for myself, who has good but very old and unused math skills, as well as for others not math inclined?
TAM
Yes, Kevin Ryan has been telling this lie for some time. I cover it on Page 19 of my whitepaper.
The NIST Report says that the aggregate KE of impacting fragments need to be roughly 1 MJ (actually they say 0.1 to 1 MJ) to shake loose a square meter of SFRM. But this does not mean that the SFRM absorbs all of this energy. The vast majority of energy remains to damage the structure underneath or ricochet the impacting fragments into other SFRM somewhere else.
Kevin Ryan not only uses 1 MJ / m2, disingenuously using the top of the range, but also assumes all of that energy is absorbed. If a three-quarter inch layer of SFRM could do that, we should use it as armor on main battle tanks.
However, since this is "Bash NIST Day," I will add that I don't understand why they used energy and not momentum in the above expression. I believe that momentum is actually the correct quantity, and their use of KE leads to further confusion. Probably has no impact at all on their overall conclusions, though.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Bash NIST Day! Can we have one every year? 