NIST engineer John Gross interview

[A W Smith]

Haha did i just hear that? Gee that was a great example you got there.. You should really think about what you just said.. mmm what is coal used for again? I suppose there was coal at world trade centres is that it? suppose it caused 1000+ degree temperatures? and molten metal?

you are denying there were combustibles within the debris of the trade center then?

Do you deny there were service and transit tunnels leading underneath the trade center into the basement and lower levels? Do you deny that these tunnels could feed oxygen into the fires underground through convection? I suggest you look up some steel making processes

 

[MikeW]

Haha did i just hear that? Gee that was a great example you got there.. You should really think about what you just said.. mmm what is coal used for again? I suppose there was coal at world trade centres is that it? suppose it caused 1000+ degree temperatures? and molten metal?

For fires reaching around 1500 degrees C, 2732 F, see http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/CaseStudy/steelComposite/default.htm .

More on regular hydrocarbon fires exceeding 1000 degrees C on this page.

 

[kookbreaker]

Also you must not read much ethier cause SLC has been debunked..

Well, no actually. You see you CT woos need to realise that saying 'Oh yeah!? I don't think so!' is not actually debunking. I've seen plenty of would be CT heros start out with some kind of 'debunking' of CT, but then those facts get int eh way and they basicly report to little more than the comment above and a lot of personal incredulity ('Whaddya mean fire is hot! Are kiddin' me?!')

 

[The Almond]

Ok first I will start with why it is important to study the way WTC should collapse using official report as the foundation. Why is this so important you may ask? Well for one alot of assumptions where already made in official report.

This is a terrible, yet unsupported statement.

For starters the government couldn’t know the exact temperature in WTC.

Why would it be important to know the exact temperature? How many significant figures do conspiracy fantasists need before they will accept the word of hundreds of scientists and engineers?

Yes there was jet fuel, but how could one really tell how much jet fuel would have been left after the impact? When most of the jet fuel was probably absorbed in the blast (which can be seen during impact).

Besides the questions and 3 unfounded assumptions, this argument is particularly weak.

So that means government had to make assumptions.

False. NIST made calculations, something of which conspiracy fantasists are totally unaware. Yes, it is possible to calculate the heat load generated by a kerosene ignited office fire. Yes, it is possible to determine the thermodynamic effects on steel given the heat loads. Yes, it is possible to determine the structural effects of heat load on a steel member.

Whole report is based on assumptions that there was enough jet fuel and fires to weaken the steel.

False. The report was based upon the entirely real and valid assumption that the planes which struck the WTC towers were the only initiator of their collapse. The disappointing list of nutcases, folklorists, and pubescents called the Truth movement have yet to produce any evidence which would pass evidenciary law in any country of explosives, space microwaves, thermite, or radioactive woodchucks.

How can anyone truly know the fires where in right location and where exactly hot enough? You cant know that, you just have to take their word for it (which is based on assumptions).

So says a person totally unfamiliar with the scientific method. Yes, you can know these things. NIST will show you how if you actually sit down and read the NCSTAR.

Now I’m not going to pretend I know exact temperatures because that would be making assumptions. If there was a chance that these assumptions where wrong then the official story could also be wrong am I correct?

No. The specifics of the collapse initiation state may be shown to be incorrect, but that does not disprove the basic theory. To do so, you would have to show sufficient evidence that is contrary to the official collapse senario.

So if there is so much questions in the air regarding 9/11 event,

Asked only by Truthers who are willfully ignorant of everything regarding 9/11 including evidence which does not suppor their theory.

why not create model to show how official story pre collapse would in fact show how the building would fall in way they did?

You obviously did not read my analysis of a real-world model. But, rather than answering my question, you have simply decided to rephrase it.

They used a simulated model of plane going into trade centers to show how support beams and plane where affected.

False, they used observations of the actual damage, in addition to damage calculated by the very well known trajectory of the aircraft. Steel from the most heavily damaged floors was analyzed at NIST by career metalurgists to verify the calculated and simulated accuracy of the report.

Which still couldn’t explain why the engine was found on streets and etc, but I want get into that atm, I will control myself.

I should note that, without resorting to unfounded, illogical and downright silly assumptions, no conspiracy fantasist has ever explained that, either.

A computer simulated model of the building collapse due structure failure from fire is quite possible.

Oh sure, it's possible. Had you read my response on the matter, you would find that it simply requires writing software that will solve 6400 simultaneous equations for each frame of the collapse. Such a computer program does not, technically, exist.

This would help to squash peoples doubts about the official story.

No, it won't. Conspiracy fantasists are too married to their beliefs to have their minds changed. Like children, giving in to their every whim will just make them want more.

A simulated model is very possible, hell if I can do simulated models in 3ds max, I’m very confident expert in the field could achieve realistic result.

Wow! That's an ego trip for you. 8 degrees of freedom, 6400 equations simultaneously solved for each frame.

I really don’t understand why you don’t think the WTC’s behavior during collapse isn’t important? The way the WTC’s collapses proves whether or not the official story is correct (which as I was saying earlier had to be based on some assumptions).

It isn't important because it won't make buildings any safer or prevent such an attack from happening again. You want to waste millions of dollars to satiate a small, hairbrained portion of the population, be my guest.

 

[Big Les]

Einsteen, your avatar puzzles me. Don't you realise how much your nonsense displeases the FSM? May his noodly appendage smite you at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

[LashL]

You have nothing new here.

Hmm. I think that he/she does have something new, at least new to me. The term "an escape goat" is new to me. I, for one, will be fascinated to know what an escape goat looks like, what kind of food it eats, what country it is native to, what its life expectancy is, etc., and whether it can escape from handcuffs and a straightjacket, or merely from a flimsy pen made of chicken wire?

Does it look like this?

And does it have feathers?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Oh, wait, I see it's already covered here.

Escape Goat

A slang used by idiots who do not realize the term is scapegoat

 

[WildCat]

Hmm. I think that he/she does have something new, at least new to me. The term "an escape goat" is new to me.

Yep, missed that one!

 

[juryjone]

Ok first I will start with why it is important to study the way WTC should collapse using official report as the foundation. Why is this so important you may ask? Well for one alot of assumptions where already made in official report. For starters the government couldn’t know the exact temperature in WTC. Yes there was jet fuel, but how could one really tell how much jet fuel would have been left after the impact? When most of the jet fuel was probably absorbed in the blast (which can be seen during impact). So that means government had to make assumptions. Whole report is based on assumptions that there was enough jet fuel and fires to weaken the steel. How can anyone truly know the fires where in right location and where exactly hot enough? You cant know that, you just have to take their word for it (which is based on assumptions).

Wait a sec. Weren't you saying that NIST needed to explain the collapse, to model the collapse? Aren't you now talking about the collapse initiation? What does jet fuel have to do with the collapse, once it has started? If you have specific issues with the scientists and engineers who studied the collapse initiation, then I'm sure you have the necessary figures to refute ("debunk") their findings.

Hint: you can make assumptions that the fires could not have been hot enough to cause an already weakened structure to collapse. However, those assumptions would not be rooted in the facts. NIST's assumptions are based on real-world situations where burning building materials and office furniture have reached very high temperatures.

Now I’m not going to pretend I know exact temperatures because that would be making assumptions. If there was a chance that these assumptions where wrong then the official story could also be wrong am I correct?

If pigs could fly, I wouldn't go outside without an umbrella. Please tell us which assumptions were wrong, based on your vast knowledge of structural engineering and materials.

So if there is so much questions in the air regarding 9/11 event, why not create model to show how official story pre collapse would in fact show how the building would fall in way they did? They used a simulated model of plane going into trade centers to show how support beams and plane where affected. Which still couldn’t explain why the engine was found on streets and etc, but I want get into that atm, I will control myself. A computer simulated model of the building collapse due structure failure from fire is quite possible. This would help to squash peoples doubts about the official story. A simulated model is very possible, hell if I can do simulated models in 3ds max, I’m very confident expert in the field could achieve realistic result. I really don’t understand why you don’t think the WTC’s behavior during collapse isn’t important? The way the WTC’s collapses proves whether or not the official story is correct (which as I was saying earlier had to be based on some assumptions).

And now you're back to modelling the collapse. Or are you? Whch is it, the initiation or the collapse itself?

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't 3ds max a solid modelling program? Do you believe the towers were solid inside? Judy, is that you?

Now to the molten metal subject… Some of you claim that it was iron found dripping and in a red hot state.

Please point to the person here who stated that they saw iron dripping. While you're at it, also show us who said that iron would drip when it's red-hot. Since I can't seem to find that, it looks as though it's an assumption on your part.

Yes I will agree that it is possible that it was iron (but that is assumption on your part). So I guess it is your word against the people who where actually there on the day. Anyway even if it was iron that is irrelevant, it still doesn’t explain 1000+ degrees temperatures months after 9/11. There is maps provide by Nasa I believe that proves the temperature claims, so this is a fact (no assumptions what so ever). Also other reports that collaborate with this like the dripping metals, witness accounts, boots melting and etc. So the high temperature where definitely there? I am I correct?

Now how can you not think that these kinds of temperatures weeks after are not unusual? You like to use the thermite argument as your defense, but that is still not addressing the issue we present to you. How can rubble fire that deep down, with no accelerants like jet fuel and etc cause these high temperatures? Please don’t tell me that there was jet fuel left weeks after because that is most stupid thing I have ever heard. The lack of oxygen that fires need to fuel high temperatures is another factor, especially since it was deep in rubble. Also the fact that sites where being hosed down still didn’t stop the high temperatures is another strange factor. There is nothing in official report collapse scenario that can account for rubble fires causing those extreme temperatures, it goes against science.

And now it looks as though you want NIST to have modelled conditions in the rubble weeks after the event. That's some model.

I'll tell you what I tell my twelve-year-old: You are old enough now to communicate coherently. Just slow down and tell me what it is you want.

 

[Blackwell]

A computer simulated model of the building collapse due structure failure from fire is quite possible. This would help to squash peoples doubts about the official story. A simulated model is very possible, hell if I can do simulated models in 3ds max, I’m very confident expert in the field could achieve realistic result. I really don’t understand why you don’t think the WTC’s behavior during collapse isn’t important?

Claiming that a simulated model is possible because you can do simulated models in 3DS Max would be like me claiming that it's possible because I can create a pretty decent drawing of the towers using a pencil and a cocktail nakpin. There is no comparison. 3DS Max can create an accurate visual representation of an object, but that's it.
You clearly have no idea what you're (ur?) talking about.

 

[beachnut]

If you are a supporter of the OCT then wtc1 would not collapse if the distance between floor 96 and floor 97 was not 3.8 meter but 1 meter.
I know why NIST doesn't study global collapse because they will find that the kinetic energy is transformed in strain energy. This is what Dr. Greening told at physorg.

NISTs reports are perfect but it is easy to be perfect if you are incomplete. There is no peer reviewed global collapse paper.

There are global collapse peer reviewed papers; they are out there to be found. Some are in journals, real journals, that mean they are peer reviewed. (ironic – the real e-man would research and find the papers)

Dr. Greening actually corrects Ross's paper to show there is enough energy to start global collapse. I even ran my own numbers and confirmed Ross's 10 or 20 percent not enough became 20 percent too much to start global collapse. Ross proved wrong by events. How many truthers would trust Ross with their lives?

You can check the work and find there is an excess of energy due to gravity to start global collapse.

Here is how you confirm it. You take the paper who says not enough energy. You check his energy calculation and correct them. When you see Ross's mistake then you have more then enough energy as Ross shows to start global collapse.

You just have to take the shoddy work and research of the CT truth movement and you can debunk each claim.

In addition there are studies you can buy that are on the global collapse. But I doubt the CTers care about finding the truth. People like Dylan from LC would find a hard time selling the truth.

CTers could find enough evidence of global collapse if they tried! And the CTers could check the numbers if they would apply simple physics.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Once again you choose subject on what happened on the specific day of 9/11 like towers collapsing and etc.. Im talking about governments ties to alkida, ISI, drug trade and etc. care to explain it all? I have never seen skeptic onces try to debunk these. You just twist words and turn it back to only thing you know about offical reports and screw loose change which been debunked also.

Al Qaeda, child.

When you can type a coherent topic sentence, and a cohesive paragraph, and not make the errors typical of the willfully ignorant and foolish, your comments might be taken in an other than disdainful light.

As it is, you are an embarassment to the mother who gave you birth. Call her, now, and apologize for bringing shame on her blood. If you know who your father is, do likewise for him.

DR

 

[rwguinn]

Al Qaeda, child.

When you can type a coherent topic sentence, and a cohesive paragraph, and not make the errors typical of the willfully ignorant and foolish, your comments might be taken in an other than disdainful light.

As it is, you are an embarassment to the mother who gave you birth. Call her, now, and apologize for bringing shame on her blood. If you know who your father is, do likewise for him.

DR

Now, there's diplomacy.
Myself, I'd say:
I hope when you get home your momma runs out from under the porch and bites you on the butt.

But, I'm no diplomat.

 

[CurtC]

When you can type a coherent topic sentence, and a cohesive paragraph, and not make the errors typical of the willfully ignorant and foolish, your comments might be taken in an other than disdainful light.

And to top that all off, he goes to the extra trouble of posting in the Arial font, for maximum annoyance.

 

[Blackwell]

And to top that all off, he goes to the extra trouble of posting in the Arial font, for maximum annoyance.

Hey, at least it's not Comic Sans.

 

[JimBenArm]

Once again you choose subject on what happened on the specific day of 9/11 like towers collapsing and etc.. Im talking about governments ties to alkida, ISI, drug trade and etc. care to explain it all? I have never seen skeptic onces try to debunk these. You just twist words and turn it back to only thing you know about offical reports and screw loose change which been debunked also.

Try using real words. If you don't know how to spell them, look it up. The typos and mangled syntax make it painful to even try to follow what nonsense you are spouting.
Maybe your mommy can show you how to use a dictionary. Please ask her.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Try using real words. If you don't know how to spell them, look it up. The typos and mangled syntax make it painful to even try to follow what nonsense you are spouting.
Maybe your mommy can show you how to use a dictionary. Please ask her.

It's a ploy, Cap'n Jim-Ben. He is purposely mangling his posts for his own 8-year-old mentality amusement. Look closer and you'll see the inconsistencies. He's doing it to hide his sockiness, or to make him appear "unique" or just for whatever dopey reason a small child might have.

I have threatened to take down the TwoofieLand wallpaper in his bedroom and have denied him his favorite drink, Tuti-Fruti Twoofaid in his lunch pail. Hell, what else can we do?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Hold on, guys.

If GMotives is who I think it is, he's a friend of mine from school. (Pardalis has met him as well). I referred him over here a couple days ago, since I really don't have the time to immerse myself in this stuff. He's no fence sitter, despite what he might have indicated in his OP. (Once again, assuming he is who I think he is).

He's a smart guy, and not your standard LCF nutcase, so be nice to him, even if it takes patience.

And to GMotives: I'm sure to you it looks like everyone's being a jerk to you, but keep in mind that these arguments have been repeated over and over again by a bunch of people who can't count to 10, so bear with us.

 

[Pardalis]

Hold on, guys.

If GMotives is who I think it is, he's a friend of mine from school. (Pardalis has met him as well).

Is he really?

So GMotive, how was the reaction of your science department to your presentation?

 

[Gravy]

If you are a supporter of the OCT then wtc1 would not collapse if the distance between floor 96 and floor 97 was not 3.8 meter but 1 meter.
I know why NIST doesn't study global collapse because they will find that the kinetic energy is transformed in strain energy. This is what Dr. Greening told at physorg.

NISTs reports are perfect but it is easy to be perfect if you are incomplete. There is no peer reviewed global collapse paper.

einsteen, can you show why Bazant's June, 2006 paper is wrong when it claims the collapse would have progressed even if the initial fall was 0.5 meter?

 

[The Doc]

NISTs reports are perfect but it is easy to be perfect if you are incomplete. There is no peer reviewed global collapse paper.

Ok. Then would you care to point me towards the peer-reviewed controlled demolition paper?