The Twin Towers at free fall speed

So if there was a video of a recorded explosion and column no .79
failed immediatly after that explosion what implications would that
have?
 
thecritta said:
So if there was a video of a recorded explosion and column no .79
failed immediatly after that explosion what implications would that
have?
Click to expand...

Oh, you have shift shift shifted to wtc7 now?

Feel free to provide any video which has explosions that you can hear as NIST has pointed out (and many others) any explosive capable of cutting the steel columns would be over 140 DB and would be clearly audible.

Feel free... I'd love to see it.
 
Newtons Bit said:
If you think the real-world test is necessary, please go spend YOUR money on it. Do not ask me to spend my money (i.e. tax dollars) on it while people in this country are still without the basic necessities of life.
Click to expand...

Where did I EVER even SUGGEST that you should be obligated to spend your money on some test? It's nowhere in my posts, so relax your sphincter.

I am simply suggesting a design for a test that would corroborate the FEA simulations. If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine. So what? Go on your way then.

.
 
jay howard said:
Where did I EVER even SUGGEST that you should be obligated to spend your money on some test? It's nowhere in my posts, so relax your sphincter.

I am simply suggesting a design for a test that would corroborate the FEA simulations. If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine. So what? Go on your way then.

.
Click to expand...

So you don't think NIST needs to actually perform this test, only design it?

This is absurd.
 
OK, this is the 4th or 5th time. I'll break it down, maybe it will be easier for jay howard to understand.

What do you want tested? (which FEA if any)

Who do you want to test it? (to prove...x, y, z)

Who should pay for the test? (you, me, charlie sheen, Canadian taxpayer, etc.)

Who should validate the test and say "yup, they got it right?"
- - - If not NIST / ASCE / global engineering community, then who else?
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Exactly, There is no need to construct an entire test building to verify the proposed building will perform as required.
Click to expand...

Again, I think most people here are misunderstanding what I'm looking for. First and foremost: I'm not asking anyone to pay for anything.
Nor am I demanding that the towers be rebuilt to test NIST's theory.
I'm just trying to get some agreement on what the FEA's conditions were of failure of joint complexes. I'm also NOT asking anyone to do my homework for me. Just trying to get some agreement on the conditions for test design.

If you think it's already been covered by the simulations, well, that's perfectly fine. No need to participate in this conversation any further.

Anyone still have a problem with this?

.
 
jay howard said:
Again, I think most people here are misunderstanding what I'm looking for. First and foremost: I'm not asking anyone to pay for anything.
Nor am I demanding that the towers be rebuilt to test NIST's theory.
I'm just trying to get some agreement on what the FEA's conditions were of failure of joint complexes. I'm also NOT asking anyone to do my homework for me. Just trying to get some agreement on the conditions for test design.

If you think it's already been covered by the simulations, well, that's perfectly fine. No need to participate in this conversation any further.

Anyone still have a problem with this?

.
Click to expand...

You do understand that each element is modeled individually and then constructed into a building. They are given all the properties of the real elements. They perform VERY VERY close to real life. This has been explained.

Furthermore when 5 independent labs run 5 independent simulations using different software comes up with the same thing, it's pretty safe to assume that the conclusions are correct.

This is obvious stuff.
 
Last edited:
jay howard said:
I'm just trying to get some agreement on what the FEA's conditions were of failure of joint complexes. I'm also NOT asking anyone to do my homework for me. Just trying to get some agreement on the conditions for test design.

If you think it's already been covered by the simulations, well, that's perfectly fine. No need to participate in this conversation any further.

Anyone still have a problem with this?
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that those conditions are derived from the known, very well tested, material properties and relationships of structural engineering. If you were to go out and get a structural engineering degree, or study the topic at least, you would have this information. People here cannot do that for you. You have to do it for yourself. If the matter is of so much concern to you, what is stopping you from studying it further?
 
jay, if you really can't answer the simple set of questions that I asked, then I certainly will take your advice and not discuss this further.
 
thecritta said:
So if there was a video of a recorded explosion and column no .79
failed immediatly after that explosion what implications would that
have?
Click to expand...

Please note the thread title and the fact that WTC 7 was not part of any pair of "Twins", nor is the discussion one about the video evidence, either real or wished for.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
jay, if you really can't answer the simple set of questions that I asked, then I certainly will take your advice and not discuss this further.
Click to expand...

jay howard said:
..........
I'm just trying to get some agreement on what the FEA's conditions were of failure of joint complexes. I'm also NOT asking anyone to do my homework for me. Just trying to get some agreement on the conditions for test design.

If you think it's already been covered by the simulations, well, that's perfectly fine. No need to participate in this conversation any further.

Anyone still have a problem with this?

.
Click to expand...

Ok, if carlitos questions are not of your liking then;
GIVEN that;
the FEAs done incorporated over a century of basic and forensic research into the behaviour of steel in fires as well as the established principles of structural engineering;
AND,
that NIST did in fact do physical testing to confirm the behaviour of some materials used in the towers;

What specifically is it that causes you to suspect that additional physical tests should be designed to corroborate the FEAs?
Is there a specific strutural component or connection that you would like investigated further?

---------------------

,,,,, and while not wishing to drag this thread into a discussion of WTC 7 I will give you an example of something I would've prefered was investigated more;
NIST's hypothesis for WTC 7 is that thermal expansion of a set of beams pushed a girder off its column seat during heating, but to my mind it is equally likely that contraction of a sagging set of beams pulled the girder off its seat in the cooling stage.

Back to the twins, I repeat.........Is there a specific strutural component or connection that you would like investigated further?
 
jaydeehess said:
Ok, if carlitos questions are not of your liking then;
GIVEN that;
the FEAs done incorporated over a century of basic and forensic research into the behaviour of steel in fires as well as the established principles of structural engineering;
AND,
that NIST did in fact do physical testing to confirm the behaviour of some materials used in the towers;

What specifically is it that causes you to suspect that additional physical tests should be designed to corroborate the FEAs?
Is there a specific strutural component or connection that you would like investigated further?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still looking, but I've have been unable to find an FEA that includes the corrogated steel underbelly of the concrete slabs. This might just be an oversight on my part, but if not, it would be significant to the behaviour of the concrete--especially in terms of the accumulation and dissipation of heat.

Also, one of the criteria in NCSTAR 1-5B states "Section thicknesses were sized so that 600 C temperatures could be obtained with a fire release rate (Q) of 2 MW to 3 MW in less than an hour" (115)

Call me skeptical, but a criterion like that simply begs the question of the rate of heat accumulation of steel members.

If I'm running a test on a new energy drink that I claim will enable a person to run a mile in 5 minutes, but my criteria for test candidates states that "they must be able to run a mile in less than 5 minutes", then my test doesn't provide any new evidence to bolster my claim.

This ain't rocket science, this is basic test design. Now, does that mean that everything NIST did was tainted with design flaws? No, of course not. It just means this particular test is not designed to see how hot various steel members would get under the test conditions.

Invariably, someone here will respond that this particular test isn't supposed to test for thermal response of the steel, even though the objective of the chapter claims:

"The time varying temperatures of the steel components were measured to determine the thermal response of structural steel components to controlled room fire conditions, including flame immersion and to establish a data set to validate predictions of the temperature rise of insulated and uninsulated structural steel components." (115)

So, to be clear and in context, these tests were indeed designed to validate predictions of the temperature rise of steel, however, the steel was chosen on the specific criterion that the steel would reach 600C in less than an hour.

I have not read the entire report. There are without doubt, parts of it that are beyond my scope. But this is simply not a test of what they say they were testing for.

I haven't altered the text or taken it out of context. So yes, I would like a test that actually tests to "determine the thermal response of structural steel components to controlled room fire conditions..." And if this wasn't it, why did the objective claim it was?


.
 
Jay Howard: To help me put your concerns into perspective, can you provide a bit of background on your education and experience in this field?
 
DavidJames said:
Jay Howard: To help me put your concerns into perspective, can you provide a bit of background on your education and experience in this field?
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about that too.The University Of YouTube?
 
jay howard said:
Well, I'm still looking, but I've have been unable to find an FEA that includes the corrogated steel underbelly of the concrete slabs. This might just be an oversight on my part, but if not, it would be significant to the behaviour of the concrete--especially in terms of the accumulation and dissipation of heat.

Also, one of the criteria in NCSTAR 1-5B states "Section thicknesses were sized so that 600 C temperatures could be obtained with a fire release rate (Q) of 2 MW to 3 MW in less than an hour" (115)

Call me skeptical, but a criterion like that simply begs the question of the rate of heat accumulation of steel members.

If I'm running a test on a new energy drink that I claim will enable a person to run a mile in 5 minutes, but my criteria for test candidates states that "they must be able to run a mile in less than 5 minutes", then my test doesn't provide any new evidence to bolster my claim.

This ain't rocket science, this is basic test design. Now, does that mean that everything NIST did was tainted with design flaws? No, of course not. It just means this particular test is not designed to see how hot various steel members would get under the test conditions.

Invariably, someone here will respond that this particular test isn't supposed to test for thermal response of the steel, even though the objective of the chapter claims:

"The time varying temperatures of the steel components were measured to determine the thermal response of structural steel components to controlled room fire conditions, including flame immersion and to establish a data set to validate predictions of the temperature rise of insulated and uninsulated structural steel components." (115)

So, to be clear and in context, these tests were indeed designed to validate predictions of the temperature rise of steel, however, the steel was chosen on the specific criterion that the steel would reach 600C in less than an hour.

I have not read the entire report. There are without doubt, parts of it that are beyond my scope. But this is simply not a test of what they say they were testing for.

I haven't altered the text or taken it out of context. So yes, I would like a test that actually tests to "determine the thermal response of structural steel components to controlled room fire conditions..." And if this wasn't it, why did the objective claim it was?


.
Click to expand...

Could you explain, in your own words, what you think the purpose of this test was?
 
Ah, the good old UofYOU. I hear the fraternities throw great parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom