letter to NIST

Originally posted by Griff
I found something interesting in the NIST report while digging for connections.

Now, granted this was June of '04, so they may have found an answer. If anyone knows specifics, I'd be highly grateful. As I was on a roll.

I'm pretty sure all the info you need is in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2, if you can be more specific I will find it for you.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Griff
I found something interesting in the NIST report while digging for connections.

Now, granted this was June of '04, so they may have found an answer. If anyone knows specifics, I'd be highly grateful. As I was on a roll.

I'm pretty sure all the info you need is in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2, if you can be more specific I will find it for you.

Connection specifics. Let me know if you find anything. I'm currently checking also.

Originally posted by Griff
Connection specifics. Let me know if you find anything. I'm currently checking also.

If you mean beam to column connection specifics they are documented on page 461 (123 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2. These are ANSYS model specifics, but the information you require might be there, if not there are schematic diagrams on page 22 (66 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Griff
Connection specifics. Let me know if you find anything. I'm currently checking also.

If you mean beam to column connection specifics they are documented on page 461 (123 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2. These are ANSYS model specifics, but the information you require might be there, if not there are schematic diagrams on page 22 (66 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.

Thanks. I found more information of the types of bolts and their capacities. But, I still haven't seen where they state how many bolts attached the girders to the columns. Still reading though.

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks. I found more information of the types of bolts and their capacities. But, I still haven't seen where they state how many bolts attached the girders to the columns. Still reading though.

You'll need to cross reference the drawings on pages 27 and 28 (71-72 PDF) from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 with the schematic diagrams on the previous pages. If you want specifics of the column/beam layout around the initiation columns, NCSTAR 1-9A has more details of the LS-DYNA (global analysis) modelling NIST did.

Originally posted by jthomas
That means absolutely nothing, of course. You've been reduced to muttering by your inability to refute NIST.:

I have refuted NIST, when are you going to be mature enough to admit it.

Face the facts, NIST failed to test steel from Building 7 so their report is dbunked. Its too little too late.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
That means absolutely nothing, of course. You've been reduced to muttering by your inability to refute NIST.:

I have refuted NIST,...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Face the facts, NIST failed to test steel from Building 7 so their report is dbunked. Its too little too late.

I don't know how you aren't understanding this, but if you dismiss NIST by this criteria, you dismiss every possible investigation, you must therefore logically not hold any strong beliefs either way on this, because none are supported by your theories.

Of course I doubt that is the case, and I suspect you feel you can pick and choose, so NIST's report can be ignored as they didn't test steel, but reports indicating controlled demolition are rigorous because, well, I honestly don't know how you rationalise it, and I'm intrigued to find out.

So tell me, how does your post not 'debunk' every possible WTC7 report (except the FEMA report which you might not have actually read)?

Originally posted by exponent
So tell me, how does your post not 'debunk' every possible WTC7 report (except the FEMA report which you might not have actually read)?

Well i have proven but NISTs own report that they failed to recover any steel for testing.

I have read the FEMA report and they did recover and test steel from building 7.

So i will state one more time. The NIST report can be taken as a serious report. Also as stated they are not an official investigating agency for 9/11.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Double Post

[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i have proven but NISTs own report that they failed to recover any steel for testing.

Yes you have, you have 'proven' this because NIST states it quite clearly. What you don't seem to be realising is that nobody, truth movement or not has any usable steel to test. If this simple criteria is enough to dismiss the NIST report, then why is it not enough to dismiss every theory including those of Controlled Demolition? If your requirement for taking a report seriously is "Must have investigated the steel" then only the FEMA report should be the only one you trust, and they found no evidence of any controlled demolition

I have read the FEMA report and they did recover and test steel from building 7.

Indeed they did, and as I have explained it shows no signs of controlled demolition, it experienced temperatures completely within the expected (and simulated by NIST) range of fires.

Also as stated they are not an official investigating agency for 9/11.

They are not an official criminal investigation agency, but they certainly are an official agency tasked with investigating 911.

NCSTAR 1 Page xxix
On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster. On October 1, 2002, the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231), was signed into law. (A copy of the Public Law is included in Appendix A). The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act.

Originally posted by exponent
Indeed they did, and as I have explained it shows no signs of controlled demolition, it experienced temperatures completely within the expected (and simulated by NIST) range of fires.

You must not have read the FEMA report that states they did find signs of high temperature corosion.

911research.wtc7.net...

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You must not have read the FEMA report that states they did find signs of high temperature corosion.

I read the report, but this is not extraordinary. NISTs simulations of the fires, plus previous tests such as Cardington fire tests and well known fire ranges from fires throughout history show us that 1000C is above average but well below the maximum temperature that can be developed in a fire.

By comparison, steel will not melt until 1500C, and Thermite produces over 2500C temperatures. How does evidence of normal (if maybe higher than average) fire temperatures somehow favour a conspiracy?

Originally posted by exponent
How does evidence of normal (if maybe higher than average) fire temperatures somehow favour a conspiracy?

It does question the official story of what the temps were in the buildings.

What was the source of the higher temps?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1It does question the official story of what the temps were in the buildings.

What was the source of the higher temps?

Fire. Here are some graphs of steel temperature in the Cardington fire tests, conducted well before 911 in the UK. Hardly likely to be part of the conspiracy.

xs124.xs.to...
xs124.xs.to...
xs124.xs.to...
xs125.xs.to...

As you can see, in all cases the steel (unprotected) rapidly rises in temperature to close to (or in one case over) 1000C. These were random beam elements picked from a particular test, but the general theme is similar. These temperatures are higher than average, but they are certainly not beyond the capability of a normal office fire.

This new theory is such a sham that its difficult to know where to begin. Dr. Shyam Sunder, who directed NIST's team of researchers in the investigation, said in the press interview;

"This is the first time that we're aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarilly due to fire."

Now according to the scientists at NIST a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." In other words; the LONG-span floor systems heated up due to low temperature office fires and magically expanded and broke all the welded connections around a column, the column unsupported started to buckle and bingo, cascading floor collapses ensued bring the building down into its own footprint within 7 sec.

This contradicts FEMA's Limited Metallurgical Examination of recovered structural steel from WTC 7, which you can find here;

www.fema.gov...

The summary states that the thinning of the steel by a "high temperature corrosion due to oxidation and sulfidation".

From the report;

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

But hey, why let contradictions get in the way of a good theory.

WTC7 was a building within a building, this is what Larry Silverstein had to say about it:

'"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors," said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.'

Read full article here: query.nytimes.com...

Dr. James Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, had this to say;"I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

I have a feeling this new theory could well turn out to be the ultimate shot in the foot for those supporting the official conspiracy theory.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by sapatos]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by sapatos]

Originally posted by sapatosThis contradicts FEMA's Limited Metallurgical Examination of recovered structural steel from WTC 7, which you can find here;

It does not, NIST reported similar steel temperatures in their simulation of WTC7. You haven't read NCSTAR 1-9 sufficiently. There's no information about where the WTC7 steel FEMA analysed is from specifically, so we can't verify NISTs theory based on this.

'"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors," said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.'

This is just a form of poisoning the well. Why do you think the fact that the columns were reinforced in certain areas affects the NIST report, have you read it?

Dr. James Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, had this to say;"I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

This is entirely taken out of context, Dr Quintiere said this about WTC 1 and 2. Regardless his theory does not even require aircraft damage, so by quoting him you endorse the opposite of controlled demolition.

Sorry if I seem a bit aggressive, I am trying to get a few posts dashed out before bed, busy as usual

Originally posted by Griff
OK. Here's what I have so far.

Griff, how did I miss this post! I am glad that you are interested in calculation. You may also be interested in having your calculations confirmed. I should also note that a more appropriate steel temperature would be around 400-500C, I will look up the specific beam sizing for you shortly.

Taking this information we can gather that one single bolt can carry a load of 150,000 x 0.601 = 90,152.31 pounds

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Page 463
The ultimate tensile strength of a single high strength bolt, Rn-bolt tension, where the tensile force is applied along the length of the bolt, was given by
Rn-bolt tension = Ab × Fnt (Eq. J3-1, LRFD)
where
Ab = area of the bolt shank, in^2
Fnt = nominal bolt tensile strength, ksi.
For ASTM A325 bolts, Fnt-325 is 90 ksi and for ASTM A490 bolts, Fnt-490 is 113 ksi (from AISC 2005,Table J3.2).

(apologies for bad equation formatting, apparently ATS doesn't support superscript or subscript )

It's also interesting to note that the shear strength of ASTM A325 bolts is 45ksi.

edit: There's no specific information on a 'typical failure', but the largest beam size is W36x135 and an example connection would appear to be between columns 76 and 79, which would be an 8 bolt knife type connection, so a requirement of around 360kip for shear failure? Once bolt shear occurs, nothing will restrain column 79 on this side.

At this point I have no objections to make really, I am not a structural engineer but the capacity for failure certainly seems to exist, and obviously it's supported by NISTs ANSYS analysis. Really we need someone who works with ANSYS who can verify NISTs modelling, but I have no good reason to doubt it at this point. I look forward to your response.

edit2: Yep I have confirmed that the example beam we're talking about is W36x135 with a K8 connection type. The listed vertical failure load is 436kip at weld failure. I think there are fillet welds I did not take into account earlier. Still this renders your theory difficult, as cutting through 8 bolts vertically is extremely hard and the amount of concrete and sundries that would have to be removed is quite extensive.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by exponent]

[edit on 28-8-2008 by exponent]

Originally posted by exponent
As you can see, in all cases the steel (unprotected) rapidly rises in temperature to close to (or in one case over) 1000C. .

But wasn't the steel in building 7 (protected) because no plane hit buidling 7 to knock off the fireproofing?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1But wasn't the steel in building 7 (protected) because no plane hit buidling 7 to knock off the fireproofing?

It was, which is why I added that caveat. This will help by both massively increasing the amount of time needed to heat a beam to that temperature, and also because of this increased time, the fire may have exhausted its local fuel supply before the beam heats significantly.

It's very worthy to note here that we are talking about behaviour which occurs well past the rated fire protection. This is why I take objection to the phrase 'deathtrap'. Any building that has been on fire for more than an hour should be considered a deathtrap. Obviously buildings would ideally never collapse but there is only so much that can be done, and in this case there were two additional situations which are unlikely to reoccur. There was no water for automatic sprinklers, and there were no firefighters with water to fight the fires.