It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is wrong with the NIST report?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Many here have problems with the NIST report on the WTC collapses.

Mostly what I hear are claims of shoddy research, with no specifics.

Here is the NIST website with the report.

wtc.nist.gov...

If it is inaccurate or wrong about things lets figure them out in this thread.

Please cite what you are talking about, as the report is big and without citations it will be very hard for all of us to stay on the same page.

So, what is factually wrong or innacurate in the NIST report?




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

: Originally posted by LeftBehind


: Originally posted by Valhall


NIST states no structural member was subjected to temperature in excess of 300 C and that no structural member was subjected to the elevated temperatures of the fire for the duration of time between impact and collapse. In fact, they go on to specifically state the fires burned in a given area for approximately 20 minutes before consuming the fuel in that area and moving on.




Actually, that's a pretty inaccurate peicing together of different peices of the report.

Their own fire maps show structural members being exposed to much higher temperatures. You are basically twisting different parts of it to make it sound like nonsense.

But your right, this is for another thread, you wouldn't want to keep derailing this one.





Tell it to Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Acting Deputy Director and Lead Investigator of the NIST investigation into the response and collapse of the WTC towers. He's the one that strung it all together.

wtc.nist.gov...


External Source

•The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainlyto burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel.
•Typical office furnishings were able to sustain intense fires for at least an hour on a given WTC floor. No structural component, however, was subject to intense fires for the entire period of burning. The duration of intense burning impacting any specific component was controlled by:
•The availability of combustible materials
•Fuel gases released by those combustibles
•Combustion air in the specific area


www.abovetopsecret.com...

How's this for starters? This is the question you asked of Valhall and didn't respond. You either started this thread to answer these types of questions or you ignored Valhall in the other thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
NIST keeps changing it's story. Thats the problem.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
NIST keeps changing it's story. Thats the problem.


Actually, I don't find this a problem at all. Why? If faced with new evidence and they didn't change their story, then I'd have a problem with it.

Although, I do agree for the money that was paid, they should have had a solid foundation of their report to begin with. Pun intended.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
if faced with new evidence or excluding it?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
My primary problem with the NIST report is the data they produce does not back the conclusions they make.

This problem is most resident in the conclusion that the plane damage coupled with the weakening of the core steel due to the fires created a situation that could cause a global collapse.

Now, please note that I'm not saying "the damage of the planes coupled with weakening produced by fire couldn't possibly bring down the towers". In fact, if you review my posting history you will see that I've gone to great pains to show that a sustained fire could weaken steel to the point it could give. What I have a problem with is the data the report provides does not:

provide sufficient damage to core columns, or
sufficient sustained temperatures at the core columns

to produce what the report concludes. It's that simple. But they don't stop there, they go on to rub salt in the offending wound by stating that creep played a significant role in the failure of the already weakened core columns.

Creep - at 300 C for 100 minutes (this is laughable) - but wait, that's how long the fires burned, that's not how long any given structural element was exposed to the 300 C (which is still laughable), because the NIST states no structural element was exposed to the fire for the duration of time between impact and collapse. And that's something else that needs to be pointed out again - I guess. Any strength degradation due to increased temperature is ONLY during the time of increased temperature. The strength comes back as the steel cools.

Does this make the report basically useless? No - because of the extremely small amount of data they list in the report there is value. BUT, it makes their conclusions worthless because it is the two points of lost strength and creep that they hinge their entire collapse on.

References:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
What pages exactly are each of you talking about.

Please, if we are going to bring up specific NIST statements, include a citation or quote.

Bullet points including your interpretation are not the same as specific quotes.

This is not a thread for me specifically to debunk anything.

I started this to hopefully start a meaningful dialog about specific claims, as opposed to the mostly sidetracked generalizations common to most 911 threads.

Please do not addess your evidence specifically to me.

I was hoping this could be about the NIST report specifically.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
As to what was posted on another thread:

That image clearly shows columns in excess of 300c.

All of the green columns are above that temperature, so it is not clear how that is supposed to prove that no column ever reached a temperature over 300c.



[edit on 5-12-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
page xli of NIST NCSTAR 1-3


NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to themal expansion. The method can only proble the temperature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the permieter columsn on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C. These areas were:

* WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
* WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
* WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 c,w ere found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adquate paint for analysis. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.


page 42, same report


While the physical damage and failure mechanisms were reported for the present condition of the steel, in most cases it was difficult to conclude which extreme loading event may have led to the condition. Observed damage may have been a result of the aircraft impact, the pre-collapse fire, the ensuing collapse of the buidlings, post-collapse fires, or the subsequent handling related to the recovery efforts. In particular, it was difficult to separate degradation from the relatively brief fire exposure experienced prior to the collapse of the buildings from the fire exposure in the debris pile at the WTC site, which for some samples was as long as 4 months.



From page 94 of same report:


NIST has developed a novel approach to evaluating the primer paint on the structural components for evidence of exposure to high-temperature excursions (see Appendix D of NSIT NCSTAR 1-3C). This method was found to be relatively easy to implement and robust enough to examine an entire component in the field. Calibration tests in the laboratory showed that, although there was little or no change in color, the primer paint used on the WTC steels that reached temperatures over 250 C cracked (similar to a "mud cracking" pattern) from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel. Since deformation and environmental effects can also cause mud-cracking, the absence of mud-cracking indicates the steel has not exceeded 250 C, but the presence of mud cracks cannot be assumed to be caused by high temperature.
[Emphasis added by me]

continuing on from page 94 to 95:


Over 170 areas associated with the 21 exterior panels were analyzed, and the results may be found in Appendix E of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. These 21 panels represent only 3 percent of the panels on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations showed evidence of paint mud cracking:

1. Panel K-1, WTC 1, column 210, flange and inner web of 98th floor region. Prior to the collapse of WTC 1, the panel was observed to have experienced varying degress of fire exposure for a minimum of 31 cumulative minutes in this area. A unique feature of this panel is that the upper portion of the column was crushed while generally maintaining concentric axial alignment with the lower portion of the column, Fig. 6-36. This suggests that deformation occurred at the onset of collapse, while the lower portion of the column was still constrained due to the bolted splice (endplates).


Let's take a break right here and re-read the above paragraph...this column did not buckle. It did not deform prior to collapse. It was on the 98th floor and the top end of it was crushed while remaining axially (vertically) aligned. Deformation due to fire can be ruled out on this column, deformation laterally due to floor truss sagging can be ruled out on this column, this column was "smacked" from the top. Basically, this column didn't fail, it just got jack-hammered down.

continuing on page 95...


2. Panel K-2, WTC 1, column 236, 93rd floor spandrel. This area was observed to have fire exposure for nin cumulative minutes prior to collapse, Fig. 6-13. A positive reading was made directly below the truss seat while above the seat in the same location a negative result was obtained, Fig. 6-37. This suggests that the concrete floor may have shielded the upper portion of the column from the high-temperature exposure experienced by the lower portion.

3. Panel N-8, WTC 1, column 143, seat and standoff plates of the 99th floor. This seat (Fig. 6-38) was exposed to fire for a minimum of 18 cumulative minutes before collapse. Mud cracking was not observed on the spandrel plate to which the seat was welded.


That takes care of the external column investigation - if you want to call it that. Now, let's look at the core column investigation:


Four of the core columns with known as-built locations were examined for mud cracking of the paint. For columns C-88a and C-88b, sufficient paint for analysis was not available. For columns HH and C-80, few areas of paint were observed (three to five spots per column) with no indication of temperatures over 250 C. Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columsn on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.


Moving away from our "robust primer paint investigation" which has already been stated to not be conclusive because mud-cracking doesn't necessarily mean a damned thing, we move to metallographic analysis of the steel.

At the bottom of page 95:


Like wise, high-temperature excursions due to fire can also alter the microstructure and the mechanical properties. Therefore, if knowledge of the as-fabricated microstructure is available, then a review of the "affected" mcirostructure may give an indication of the level of elevated temperature exposure while in service.


Dropping down to page 99 where the analysis picks back up after a series of photographs, we have...


The spandrel steels identified as having been exposed to fire prior to the collapse of the building showed no microstructural evidence of change. Similar results indicated that three of the four seats observed to be exposed to severe pre-collapse fire conditions did not experience significant microstructural changes as a result of the exposure. However, the seat with the melted binder (Fig. 6-38) did show signs of microstructural alteration as a result of elevated temperature exposure, though it was unknown when this exposure occurred. Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.


Let's break here...please note that last ambiguous statement made about the analysis of the columns. Please note it doesn't say a damned thing. I mean the statement could absolutely be left out of the report and we'd have the same knowledge. But let's look at some tell-tales as to why the statement that appears worthless is included. Note they are trying to establish that the columns exceeded 625 C - but they report their attempts are inconclusive. There's a damned good reason they are trying to find evidence of steel exceeding approxiamtely 600 C. Because they have incorporated the assinine concept that "creep" played a significant role in the collapse of the towers. And creep does not come into play until you have exceeded approximately 40% of the melting point temperature of the steel. The melting point of the steel used in the towers is right at 2700 F (or about 1480 C). In order to get their hair-brained "creep factor" in, they've got to show proof they exceeded 600 C! So that's why we have this nonsensical statement that does not make a statement of what temperature the steel DID experience, but only references inconclusive results relative to what appears to be an arbitrary temperature point - it's not arbitrary! it's required! (for their theory at least). You could go so far as to state this statement is indicative of them looking for data to support a pre-established conclusion!

I have to get ready for work now, so that's all I'm doing for now. I'll come back later and discuss more of the bad science and logic utilized in this report at a later time.

LB - you and I butt heads because you want to accept the official story and you see me as some how not accepting it. You are wrong about me. I accept that the planes and the fires may have brought down the buildings all by themselves, but I remain open minded that there may have been more done by the terrorists than has been established. BUt my main point of contention in the whole 911 discussion is the absolute travesty of a $16 million report we were handed. And NIST refuses to give anyone the data and models behind how they came to the conclusions they reached - in the face of no supporting data in their own report.

That's not okay with me, and it shouldn't be okay with you - no matter what you think of the events of that day. This isn't about a conspiracy, it's about an injustice in the form of an incomplete investigation and lack of full disclosure so the conclusions can be verified.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Let's break here...please note that last ambiguous statement made about the analysis of the columns. Please note it doesn't say a damned thing. I mean the statement could absolutely be left out of the report and we'd have the same knowledge.


I agree that they do make ambiguous statements, and it is strange that more physical evidence was not collected. However, how much physical evidence was available and identifiable after the collapse and clean up?

How much data was lost during the rescue attempts, rightly so I may add.

I agree with you that the lack of physical evidence NIST report is frustrating, however that does not make it factually inaccurate or wrong, just ambiguous and inconclusive.


After all, from your citation above.


More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columsn on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.


You are correct, they could have left out that entire section as it really proves nothing either way.



LB - you and I butt heads because you want to accept the official story and you see me as some how not accepting it.


No, I could really care less what the official story is, really I just think the bomb theories are absolutely ridiculous. I use the NIST report because there really isn't much out there showing that the building fell without the aid of bombs.

I have looked at the various theories, both bomb and non-bomb, and I am open to any interpretation that accounts for things that we know were there, as in not bombs.

The world is strange, and complex systems like the towers can and will behave in ways that surprise people and be nearly impossible to explain.

The fact that people want to jump on the strange things that happened and start screaming about government planted bombs with twisted logic is what really gets me.

So, anyways, we have established that the NIST report is ambiguous and that it lacks physical evidence for it's theories.

Does anyone have factual errors or innacuracies they would like to point out?



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
And since apparently I can't edit, sorry for the double post.


Valhall, what do think the NIST team should have done? If we were to have another investigation and you were in charge, what would you have done differently?



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Valhall, what do think the NIST team should have done? If we were to have another investigation and you were in charge, what would you have done differently?


I don't know about Valhall, but I would take the data and fit my theory around that. Instead of trying to find data to fit my theory. Which is obviously what the NIST did.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I would have done just about everything different, but that's beside the point. What is to the point is that there are proper scientific methods, proper logic flowstreams, and proper engineering methods and analysis - none of which seem to have been employed. It's a shame, because there isn't the possibility of a second chance on this.

Long story short, the conclusions stated in the report have no supporting data provided, and NIST refuses to provide data, or models, so none of their algorithms and conclusions can be verified.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
What is to the point is that there are proper scientific methods, proper logic flowstreams, and proper engineering methods and analysis - none of which seem to have been employed.


Reverse engineering something isn't a scientific method. Just reiterating what Valhall has said.


It's a shame, because there isn't the possibility of a second chance on this.


If there is a conspiracy, I'd have to say that this point is in their favor.


Long story short, the conclusions stated in the report have no supporting data provided, and NIST refuses to provide data, or models, so none of their algorithms and conclusions can be verified.


How do some people claim that it has been peer reviewed then? Answer: It has been in-house peer reviewed, but NOT subjected to outside peer review. How can we with no data?



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I don't know about Valhall, but I would take the data and fit my theory around that. Instead of trying to find data to fit my theory. Which is obviously what the NIST did.


Indeed Griff, but how exactly did they "trying to find data to fit my theory"?

While the NIST report fails to be a conclusive ironclad document, I don't see how they did what you accuse them of. If anything I see the opposite. There were many hypotheses offered up on the method of failure in the engineering community.

Are you claiming this because you don't think they considered every reasonable failure scenario?

Or are you claiming this because they didn't address whether or not bombs were used?


If the latter, then that is an unfair criticism, as no solid evidence exists that point towards pre-planted explosive or incinedary devices as being the catalyst to the global collapse.

It seems to me that they collected massive amounts of data and considered it all when reaching their conclusions. What data do you believe they left out, or should have considered?

Please demonstrate to us how exactly they only found data to fit their theory.


Originally posted by Valhall

NIST refuses to provide data, or models, so none of their algorithms and conclusions can be verified.


That I think is certainly an issue. I agree with you that all of it should be provided for independent analysis for verification.

I agree that the report is flawed, however I think we can derive some value from the data that is provided, and that even though the physical evidence is lacking, there may not have been much conclusive physical evidence remaining after the collapses.

They still present a some what reasonable answer to an unprecedented event.





[edit on 6-12-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I found this scientific paper about the NIST report.


- "NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing." (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)
- In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find: The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire... However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)
- The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.) The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the "the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted" (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were "adjusted" by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that "the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor." (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No, I could really care less what the official story is, really I just think the bomb theories are absolutely ridiculous. I use the NIST report because there really isn't much out there showing that the building fell without the aid of bombs.


Dear LeftBehind,

Would you mind to elaborate on why you believe the theory that the towers were brought down with the help of explosives/thermate to be ridiculous?

Thanks,
Vlad



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Indeed Griff, but how exactly did they "trying to find data to fit my theory"?


Have you been reading this thread?


Originally posted by Valhall
My primary problem with the NIST report is the data they produce does not back the conclusions they make.


Meaning that the data does not coincide with their conclusions. I can think of only one way this could happen. They started with a conclusion and tried to fit data to their conclusion.


While the NIST report fails to be a conclusive ironclad document, I don't see how they did what you accuse them of. If anything I see the opposite. There were many hypotheses offered up on the method of failure in the engineering community.


You mean melting steel? I don't see these MANY hypotheses offered up? I know of one hypothesis since the beginning. Plane damage and fire brought the buildings down. What other hypotheses were there?


Are you claiming this because you don't think they considered every reasonable failure scenario?

Or are you claiming this because they didn't address whether or not bombs were used?


You missed one. I'm claiming this because the data doesn't produce the outcome that they are trying to sell. No need to even mention bombs.



If the latter, then that is an unfair criticism, as no solid evidence exists that point towards pre-planted explosive or incinedary devices as being the catalyst to the global collapse.


I agree. But, did they look for this evidence? Or even report it if found? You nor I know the answer to that.


It seems to me that they collected massive amounts of data and considered it all when reaching their conclusions. What data do you believe they left out, or should have considered?


Obviously you read what Valhall has said and it went right out the other eye?


Please demonstrate to us how exactly they only found data to fit their theory.


The problem is that the data does not fit their theory.




They still present a some what reasonable answer to an unprecedented event.


Yes, some what reasonable. But for as much as we paid them, it should have been ironclad.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Thanks for that Ultima1

Again, it shows that the NIST started with a preconcieved theory and tweaked their data to fit their theory. How can you not see this LeftBehind?

Edit: BTW, I don't think they did this as a cover-up to explosives or anything like that. They just started with what they had (plane damage and fires) and tried to figure out how that could bring down the buildings. They managed to figure it out but it would have taken "the perfect storm" if you will to happen.

[edit on 12/6/2006 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Valhall

NIST refuses to provide data, or models, so none of their algorithms and conclusions can be verified.


That I think is certainly an issue. I agree with you that all of it should be provided for independent analysis for verification.

I agree that the report is flawed, however I think we can derive some value from the data that is provided, and that even though the physical evidence is lacking, there may not have been much conclusive physical evidence remaining after the collapses.

They still present a some what reasonable answer to an unprecedented event.



Damn straight that all of it should be made available. WE PAID FOR THE REPORT!

Yet it won't be released. As every FOIA document that gets filed also gets rejected because of the "Threat to National Security". And I believe they are totally right!

What threat is there from releasing 5 yr old information on how the towers fell? I'll tell you what. . . The TRUTH may be revealed! That's the real reason behind it. For some reason our government doesn't want us to see all the evidence concerning this day because it may reveal things they don't want us to know.

The whole thing stinks! But it will probably follow the same path thru history as the JFK assasination, the complicit shall live their lives & die without consequence, and the families of the victims, along with the rest of us, will never know the truth.


We are denied access to the data, and they refuse to even publically debate the issue. What are they scared of? They should be ashamed of themselves. . .

Oh & BTW- Since when does, "a some what reasonable answer to an unprecedented event", speak to the deaths of @2800 people? If their voices could be heard, I don't think they'd be satisfied. . .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join