Originally posted by snoopy
Could you point out these flaws and non-existent studies?

For one, they never tested the idea that heated trusses would sag and pull in the perimeter columns significantly. They could have, they had the resources, and this was THE point of their hypothesis, but they never tested it.

[I should also stress that there are no other scientific precedents for that behavior, either, and so NIST doesn't reference any other work, either. Steel expands when it is heated before it becomes soft enough to sag.]

They also never did any other testing to confirm any other aspects of their proposed failure mechanisms, including getting trusses to sag. In fact, they did one fire test and couldn't get the trusses to sag. That's probably why they never went on to see if it could also pull the perimeter columns inward. So this is lab results that contradict their hypotheses.


For contradictory results, you have the above, and you also have the computer-simulated fire tests in which they admitted adjusting parameters to unrealistic levels and still being unable to produce the theoretical capacity for failure. This is in their report, if you dig into it and go to their computer-simulated fire tests, though they obviously don't emphasize the above.


Those are the most important tests that they either never did or else did but ignored the results from.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by bsbray11]

They most certainly did do such testing. It's the foundation of the hypothesis. It's the bulk of the work they did. It was their testin that concluded that was the general cause of the failure.

Originally posted by snoopy
They most certainly did do such testing.

Then show me. Link me to the page where they show in lab that a sagging truss can significantly deflect a perimeter column, because I've never seen it once in my life.


No more words, just link me to it. I contend it does not exist, prove me wrong.

i wonder what led the firemen to say that the building was in danger of a 'pancake' structural collapse due to fire if it had never happened before?

i would like at the very least one example of a building other than wtc7 behaving in the same fashion.

if that cannot be produced there is no basis whatsoever for a fireman to beLIEve that it would collapse in such manner.