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.

 

John Groos NIST engineer admits fire dont melt steel...

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
video.google.com...

Pay close attention at 2minutes 11seconds..
And also his "conclusions" at the end of the video are laughable really with
the "collapse initiation", and no further calculations done after that.

What is up with these guys their names btw? John Gross, Falwell etc.. wtf? These
guys have sarcastic aliases or something?




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The steel doesn't have to melt to lose its structural load bearing integrity. The fire was hot enough to weaken the steel, even if it wasn't enough to cause it to become molten.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Even if that were so, only where there was fire the steel would have been weakend to the point of loosing loadbearing capability, it doesn't explain at all how the building collapsed as if there was no steel or even concrete in the building at all.

It came down way to fast for that and the entire structure disintegrated and came down in a time period and at a speed CD specialists would be jealous about.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
NO, the steel did not get hot enough to loose loadbearing capacity!

Do some research instead assuming you know everything or regurgitating the same debunker statements that are debunked again and again...

The WTC has a safety ratio somewhere in the ballpark of 200:1. Even if it lost half its strength, it still has a 100:1 safety ratio BEFORE the steel is actually loaded to its max capacity.

The WTC had sooooo many redundancies that even it half of the columns and beams were severed it wouldnt matter!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I suggest YOU do some research as well. NIST never claimed that steel was melted. NIST actually stated that the collapse was initiated for 3 reasons.
1- Severe damage to a building due to an airliner flying into it
2- Fires
3- The removal of fire proofing material casued my plane impact

Removing any one of the three could possibly result in the building not collapsing. ie: fire alone ..fireproofing surviving impact. etc.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Ive done plenty of research buddy! And i never said NIST said the steel melted!! DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

The NIST's own models failed to collapse. They used non-fireproofed steel, applied a massive gravity load, used fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated some large number of severed columns.

Yet, NO COLLAPSE!

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Ive done plenty of research buddy! And i never said NIST said the steel melted!! DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

The NIST's own models failed to collapse. They used non-fireproofed steel, applied a massive gravity load, used fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated some large number of severed columns.

Yet, NO COLLAPSE!

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]


I was not only adressing your post 'buddy' ... i apologize for not being more specific. (my bad)



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I suggest YOU do some research as well. NIST never claimed that steel was melted. NIST actually stated that the collapse was initiated for 3 reasons.
1- Severe damage to a building due to an airliner flying into it
2- Fires
3- The removal of fire proofing material casued my plane impact

Removing any one of the three could possibly result in the building not collapsing. ie: fire alone ..fireproofing surviving impact. etc.



This is a 9/11 Truth Debunker's definition of "research":
Reading the official story.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I love how they all reference the NIST report but none of them seem to have read one single word. The NIST report actually contradicts most of the claims OCT's contribute to it.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I think you'll find that steel loses 2 thirds of its tensile strength at about 500 c more that enough to cause collape also when steel RSJ's heat up they expand pushing out walls and supports



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Ive done plenty of research buddy! And i never said NIST said the steel melted!! DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

The NIST's own models failed to collapse. They used non-fireproofed steel, applied a massive gravity load, used fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated some large number of severed columns.

Yet, NO COLLAPSE!



I love how they all reference the NIST report but none of them seem to have read one single word. The NIST report actually contradicts most of the claims OCT's contribute to it.




Allow me to add (as i stated above) that NIST is careful to point out that the collapse resulted from three factors, not a single factor of fire. The two additional factors, apart from fire were:

(1) structural damage due to impact, and (b) the damage to insulation caused by the impact. NIST say: “In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.”
(NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 176)

The point of adjusting the model’s parameters until the model shows collapse is to arrive at parameters consistent with the hypothesis. The parameters themselves are then open to scrutiny. As NIST says:

quoted “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 is saying that the parameters are “within the range of physical reality. Now, i think its the up to the people that disagree with NISTS parameters to come out to show how and why NIST is wrong with their parameters.


Lets remember that NIST models didn't include an additional factor that are core to the NIST hypothesis: structural damage!
NIST did say that their models do predict collapse for a certain range of parameters (within the range of physical reality), and that the collapse was not due to fire alone, but due to fire + structural damage + insulation damage. It is true that NIST chose not to consider the dynamics of the structures once collapse was initiated, but they had no particular reason to do so.

Anyway, The NIST debate can go on and on. My question is...where is the hypothisis that has held up to such critcial debate as NIST's has. Where are all the engineers, CD specialists, etc... that explain what happened. If you don't agree with the hypothisis, write it down. Have is reviewed by some peers. Make yourself a fortune!! Saying, "NIST is wrong, it was a CD!" is great, but offer your hypothisis to REAL engineers so it can be disected as much as NIST has.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reap
I think you'll find that steel loses 2 thirds of its tensile strength at about 500 c more that enough to cause collape


NO!! At 500C it only looses 1/4 of its tensile strength! At 600C it typically looses about 55%. And even if the building had lost 75% of its 200:1 safety ratio it still has a 50:1 ratio, that is NOT enough to increase the load past maximum load bearing capacity.

Tens ile vs temp

Making stuff up, and outright lying about things that are all too easy to research, doesnt do any good for your side.

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

quoted “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...


Computer MODELS!! Where they could have done anything, because they dont tell anybody what they did to their "simulation".

All of their real-world models failed to collapse, even under ridiculous conditions. CASE CLOSED.

Looking at the NIST NCSTAR 1 @
wtc.nist.gov...

The PDF is numbered differently than the reports actual paginations, so i am just going to give the PDF page numbers.

NIST's evidence of fire temperatures:

"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC.

"Observation of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the mechanical properties of the steel. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures of 600 ºC." (PDF pg 140)

NIST's sagging truss modeled temperatures of 700C:

"Single composite truss and concrete slab section. A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. Knuckle failure was found to occur mainly at the ends of the trusses and had little effect on the deflection of the floor subsystem. ....." (PDF 148)

NIST used very powerful spray burners that generated temperatures well above what their own evidence supports and what open air jet fuel is know to burn at. These spray burners are controlled burn atomizers that effectively mix jet fuel with air. These burners were used in hour-long test. How does NIST justify these models? How does the jet fuel in the WTC remain in a constant state of mist? Any mist present at the WTC would have burned almost instantly, leaving only open air puddles. These spray burner models are ridiculous.:

"The first series provided a measure of FDS to predict the thermal environment generated by a steady state fire. A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (PDF 173)

You would think that fires capable of generating 900C temps on the interior columns would generate enough light to be visible from the outside. Yet, when we look into the crash zones, we see nothing but darkness from the interior.

How does NIST justify these grossly exaggerated temperatures on the interior columns considering the interior had very little fuel, was distant from any sources of fresh air, and there is no evidence on any videos or photographs?

NIST conducted models based upon temperatures (over 600C) they had no evidence to support:

6.12.6

"Unlike the simulations of the aircraft impact and the fires, there was no evidence, photographic or other, for direct comparison with the FSI results." (PDF 191)

And even under these conditions;

"All four test assemblies were able to withstand fire conditions for 2 hours..."

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"

(PDF 193)



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1


Making stuff up, and outright lying about things that are all too easy to research, doesnt do any good for your side.

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]


Funny you should say that. It's the Truthers that are WELL KNOWN for moving the goal posts!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Funny, an OCT is caught making stuff up, and you blame the CT's???

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1

Computer MODELS!! Where they could have done anything, because they dont tell anybody what they did to their "simulation".

All of their real-world models failed to collapse, even under ridiculous conditions. CASE CLOSED.



You are still failing to count one MAIN factor. NIST did not include impact damage with their studies. As pointed out several times...remove the damage caused by impact ... YES there would probably not be a collapse!

You seem to know alot about the NIST report and discredit it. Where is your hypothisis?

185 staff members contributed to the report... i agree too much money was spent on it...and not ALL answers were given... but I will say it again.... NO ONE ... not a SOUL has contributed a hypothisis that has stood up to the massive exposure that NIST has. Show me a peer review paper from ONE person that explains another hypothisis.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Funny, an OCT is caught making stuff up, and you blame the CT's???

[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]


Read his quote... it says " I think..."

You corrected him... didn't make him a liar.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
This guy said that he wasn't "at liberty" to discuss NIST's WTC7 research.

WHAT!


Hadn't seen the NASA imagery, either, or firefighter testimonies. This is the same team that said vaporized steel and etc. from Ground Zero was irrelevant to their investigation.




Btw, do I need to remind anybody that this is a FEDERAL AGENCY? Conflict of interest? Anybody? Hypothetical for 2 seconds?

[edit on 2-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I can understand the effects of impact on the towers, but WTC7 wasn't impacted by airplanes, so how is that a valid argument in THIS thread??

Also, if fire had weakened portions of the steel to the point that they lost structural integrity (i am willing to entertain this possibility) then why did the building fall perfectly into its own footprint as though it was done thru CD? Wouldn't the building have sagged or a portion of it collapsed as did the Oklahoma City Federal building? I would have expected to see the Debris from WTC7 looking very similar to that if the "official" stories are true...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The real world physical models most certainly were conducted with estimated structural damage. So we have all three, absolutely no fire proofing, fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated structural damage.

The computer models also modeled estimated damage, as well as a number of very mysterious variables which NIST refuses to disclose, even though it is critical to their 'animation'.

Nobody else has been able to recreate the NIST models. The hallmark of all scientific experiments is a detailed description that allows for repeatability.

Both fireproofing and structural damage were modeled, PG 6
wtc.nist.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join