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.

 

letter to NIST

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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,


So how is it a deathtrap if its not going to collapse (as we know no other steel building has collapsed from fire)




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1So how is it a deathtrap if its not going to collapse (as we know no other steel building has collapsed from fire)


You mean steel skyscraper. Plenty of steel buildings have collapsed. I agree that 'deathtrap' is a bad representation of any building designed to code. WTC 1,2 and 7 all collapsed because of extraneous circumstances.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I just saw this post. In advance, thanks for the information.

I'll look into it more when I get a chance. The last 2 months have been a pain. I'm juggling 6 projects at the moment and just don't have the time to really look into this fully. Hell, I'm only 51 pages into the new NIST report as it is.

One last thing though. By doing all these calculations, we are relying on NIST that their information is correct. Without even a cover-up conspiracy on their part, I have to question. As even in the first 51 pages of the new NIST report, I have found about 4 gramatical errors. Which is why I said I'd be ashamed to have my name associated with it. They had no time frame to release. How hard is it to have someone proofread for you?

Anyway, thanks for the info. It stinks we have to go digging through thousands of pages to find what a simple glance at the documentation would reveal.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Exponent, yes I have read the report. For anyone that has not read the report you really should, there's quite a lot of information to go through and it will take a while to digest and dissect it all but its well worth the time.

Get it here (just look through the links on the right side of page):

www.nist.gov...

[edit on 28-8-2008 by sapatos]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


The metal railway lines experiencing linear thermal expansion don't get anywhere near being malleable or weakened in any way. The expansion is an irresistable force and something has to give, in the case of railway lines the extra length is accomodated by deformation of the rails themselves and I've seen examples in inland locations where the rails have deformed far more spectacularly than in the pic I provided.

The coefficient of linear expansion for steel is around 12 parts/million/K degree or 0.0012%/degree so a 10m steel beam heated to 500 C degrees above ambient will expand by 6cm (over 2"). Ordinary office fires have been shown to be capable of temperatures around the 1000C mark.

Have a look at this page to get a better idea of the forces at work, particularly in the case of parallel components with common anchoring points subjected to uneven heating which I think is very relevant to the case of WTC7.

I saw the mention of shear strength of bolts earlier and the general rule of thumb for this is 60% of the bolt's UTS under tension. Also consider volumetric thermal expansion in the case of bolted connections.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Also consider volumetric thermal expansion in the case of bolted connections.


I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. Now you've gone and made us have to do derivatives (calculus). Damn you Pilgrum.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The temperature that office fires could potentially reach is not equal to the temperature the steal reached. Since NIST failed to recover any steel for testing, it's impossible to determine what temperature any of the steel reached. If they can't prove that the steel reached a high enough temperature to have any significant expansion, how can they come to the conclusion that thermal expansion was the cause of the failure?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You mean steel skyscraper. Plenty of steel buildings have collapsed.


Can you show other steel buildings in the US over 40 floors that have collapsed from fire?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


...or show us burning 40+ story buildings brought down by demo teams. I've searched, but it appears that it had never been done before, or since.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...or show us burning 40+ story buildings brought down by demo teams. I've searched, but it appears that it had never been done before, or since.


Kind of like no steel building over 40 stories collapsed from fire in the US before or since.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I just saw this post. In advance, thanks for the information.

I'll look into it more when I get a chance. The last 2 months have been a pain. I'm juggling 6 projects at the moment and just don't have the time to really look into this fully. Hell, I'm only 51 pages into the new NIST report as it is.

That's totally fine, you don't have any requirement to actually look into this, I am just against criticism without calculation.


One last thing though. By doing all these calculations, we are relying on NIST that their information is correct. Without even a cover-up conspiracy on their part, I have to question.

Well I mean I can't complain at you for questioning things, but if anyone is likely to get the correct specifications it is NIST. I am sure you could request a lot of information yourself but it seems unlikely they are very wrong on this.



As even in the first 51 pages of the new NIST report, I have found about 4 gramatical errors. Which is why I said I'd be ashamed to have my name associated with it. They had no time frame to release. How hard is it to have someone proofread for you?

Well this is the draft report. I have noticed numerous errors, figures missing, figures incorrectly inserted, time errors etc. I guess if your complaints are mostly grammatical and formatting, we should be glad they don't seem to have too much of the engineering wrong



Anyway, thanks for the info. It stinks we have to go digging through thousands of pages to find what a simple glance at the documentation would reveal.

Indeed, NIST does not prepare their reports for the professionals in the community, rather they try and make it so everyone can get a rough idea of what is going on. I must admit I would prefer very specific documentation, but even without this there is a lot of information in the reports.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Kind of like no steel building over 40 stories collapsed from fire in the US before or since.


Yes, how exactly are you not getting this. You can't use the "oh first time ever" claim to prove fire cannot cause collapse, because no building this size has ever been demolished with explosives before, so that would be the first time ever too.

I don't suppose you'll get this



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
The temperature that office fires could potentially reach is not equal to the temperature the steal reached. Since NIST failed to recover any steel for testing, it's impossible to determine what temperature any of the steel reached. If they can't prove that the steel reached a high enough temperature to have any significant expansion, how can they come to the conclusion that thermal expansion was the cause of the failure?


They have the software required to model fires and the resultant heat distribution. By doing so they can check that their simulation matches the observed results. As nobody has any steel (other than FEMA, who reports 700C+ temperatures) then this is the best we can get.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
By doing so they can check that their simulation matches the observed results.


By their own admission in the report, NIST could not observe the fires in the middle of the building.

They based their observations on the limited photographic and video evidence of the fires near the perimeter of the building.

They WERE NOT ABLE to conclude that their simulations of the fires matched the observed behaviour inside the middle of the floors.

Once more, yet again, NIST ESTIMATED. That's all it was - an estimate.

EDIT: They were not able to check that their simulations matched observed results for the steel, as they never tested any steel. Admit it, exponent, NIST ESTIMATED. There is nothing definitive or conclusive in that report. It's all guesswork, that's been tweaked as digital input into a computer model.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Once more, yet again, NIST ESTIMATED. That's all it was - an estimate.

Yes, this is how science works. How do you propose to do better than them, considering they used the evidence available? They couldn't estimate fires, because there were office features which could obscure them. How do you propose to get over this, do you have information NIST do not?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
They have the software required to model fires and the resultant heat distribution. By doing so they can check that their simulation matches the observed results. As nobody has any steel (other than FEMA, who reports 700C+ temperatures) then this is the best we can get.

Are we just supposed to take their word for it that they correctly modelled the structure? Are we supposed to take their word for it that they used correct values to input into the simulation? Are we supposed to take their word for it on how the collapse took place, even though the computer model they show us of the collapse doesn't even resemble what is seen on the real life collapse videos?
This piece, like their others, do not stand up to the scientific method. To call it science when it is pseudoscience is a misrepresentation of what NIST has accomplished here. When will the public, or anyone for that matter, have access to the evidence that NIST has used to prove their hypothesis? When will NIST's work be peer reviewed?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Are we just supposed to take their word for it that they correctly modelled the structure? Are we supposed to take their word for it that they used correct values to input into the simulation? Are we supposed to take their word for it on how the collapse took place, even though the computer model they show us of the collapse doesn't even resemble what is seen on the real life collapse videos?

You're free to do your own studies if you like? Nobody is forcing you to accept the NIST report, but you can make these same claims about any theory. Are we just supposed to take these scientists words for it that the LHC won't destroy the universe? Well yes, because they're the ones who spent years and years in school and have the qualifications and the experience to know what is happening.


This piece, like their others, do not stand up to the scientific method.

Are you a scientist? What should they have done?


When will the public, or anyone for that matter, have access to the evidence that NIST has used to prove their hypothesis?

They do, if you need more specific details you file a FOIA request like this guy did: [edit: Added wrong link!] wtcmodel.wikidot.com...


When will NIST's work be peer reviewed?

NIST are accepting comments until Sept 15th, but this publication is not part of a journal, so the peer review process is not the same.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
No, not anybody can do their own studies. We have to have access to all of the structural documentation and any other evidence available to NIST. Griff has been saying this for some time. How can their work be checked if we don't have access to the evidence?
Them accepting peoples questions and/or comments is a big sham as well. I watched their videos where they were taking questions live and failed to answer questions about thermate and molten metal. If they can brush off live video questions, how easy would it be to sweep written submissions under the carpet?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tezzajw
Once more, yet again, NIST ESTIMATED. That's all it was - an estimate.

Yes, this is how science works. How do you propose to do better than them, considering they used the evidence available? They couldn't estimate fires, because there were office features which could obscure them. How do you propose to get over this, do you have information NIST do not?


As you have stated, it is okay for us to question. You see, the biggest complaint that many have is that they 'estimated' and used the 'available' evidence. The problem is, the STEEL should have been available. That steel should NOT have been moved anywhere other than a massive holding area for complete and thorough testing.

It should never have been destroyed. It's evidence that could have provided MUCH of the data that NIST had to estimate. It's a tough situation to be in. I'm pretty sick of the arguing. Problem is, we want an independent investigation but we will never be able to investigate the evidence because it was removed and dispearsed and no longer available.

It's actions like that which I find extremely suspicious. Sorry. Did NIST have anything to do with that? Nope. Not blaming them. Just supporting the argument that they GUESSED. Plain and simple.

Can we do better? Sorry, most of us don't have the resources available to us. Nor the time. It simply comes back down to "Trust us, we are your government. We would NOT lie to you." Then they cough and put in, "well, about this." Clear their throats.

You see? Certain elements of this government have been shown to have lied over and over. Why should we then all of a sudden trust them on their 'estimates'?



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
No, not anybody can do their own studies. We have to have access to all of the structural documentation and any other evidence available to NIST.

Have you requested what you need?


Griff has been saying this for some time. How can their work be checked if we don't have access to the evidence?

It can't, but I believe I answered Griffs requests for connection details in this thread. I don't know of any FOIA request that has been turned down regarding this topic.


Them accepting peoples questions and/or comments is a big sham as well. I watched their videos where they were taking questions live and failed to answer questions about thermate and molten metal. If they can brush off live video questions, how easy would it be to sweep written submissions under the carpet?

This is just handwaving. Have you submitted comments? Are you going to?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join