Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

Originally posted by gavron
Correct. The original NIST model that said it was a combination of the plane impacts, and resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.

*snip* I will highlight what you need to read again.

The NIST model stated that NEITHER the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

MOD Note: Snide Comment Removed: Review This Link: Courtesy is Mandatory

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

Double Post

[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NIST model stated that NEITHER the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.

You're not even quoting the final reports there, NIST clearly says that the collapses were caused by a combination of initial damage and the resulting fires.

This is NISTs point by point mechanism of collapse from the final NCSTAR 1 report.

• Each aircraft severed exterior columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off insulation from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
  
• Subsequently, fires began to grow and spread. They were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel, but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
  
• These fires, in combination with the dislodged insulation, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
  
• The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the exterior columns.
  
• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the exterior columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Collapse then ensued.

Originally posted by exponent
You're not even quoting the final reports there,

Maybe becasue as stated its the original NIST model.

Not the final report, which is probably as bogus as the Building 7 final report has been proven to be.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe becasue as stated its the original NIST model.

Not the final report, which is probably as bogus as the Building 7 final report has been proven to be.

This is a perfect example of Confirmation Bias in action. ULTIMA accepts the baseline impact model of the WTC because it supports his conclusions, but then when NIST takes reasonable standard deviation into account, it does not support his conclusions. This results in it being "bogus".

Of course you have no evidence to differentiate these models, and you have not provided a good reason to say that NIST did not predict damage + fire effects resulting in collapse. Stop with this ludicrous twisting of positions ULTIMA.

Originally posted by exponent
ULTIMA accepts the baseline impact model of the WTC because it supports his conclusions,

I do not accept any NIST report, just showing how they are bogus and contridict themselves. I can also use NIST reports to debate people who believe the official story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I do not accept any NIST report, just showing how they are bogus and contridict themselves. I can also use NIST reports to debate people who believe the official story.

Do you know what "one sigma" means? How can they contradict themselves by testing three different scenarios? By this logic, any error analysis is invalid and any report which successfully tests something in only one situation is invalid.

Originally posted by exponent
How can they contradict themselves by testing three different scenarios?

Simple, the final report contridicts the original model and other prior reports.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Simple, the final report contridicts the original model and other prior reports.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I asked how, not what your opinion of the models were. Do you know what "one sigma" means?

Originally posted by exponent
I asked how, not what your opinion of the models were.

Read the reports.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by exponent
I asked how, not what your opinion of the models were.

Read the reports.

Please stop with these short snarky replies. I have read the reports and clearly more thoroughly than you. I am trying to show you how you are wrong but you are behaving in a ridiculous manner.

One liners are against the rules here for good reason. You will be utterly unable to explain how these models can contradict as they are within the bounds of error analysis. I am trying to show that to you and am doing so with courtesy and with patience. I will not continue to play these stupid little games with you.

*snip*

MOD Note: Unnecessary Snide Comment Removed: Please review this Link: Courtesy is Mandatory

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by exponent
Please stop with these short snarky replies. I have read the reports and clearly more thoroughly than you. I am trying to show you how you are wrong but you are behaving in a ridiculous manner.

How am in wrong?

The final report on WTC contridicts the original model. The oringinal model states that neither the plane impacts or fires were the cause of the collapse.

NIST failed to do a proper investigation of buidling 7 when they failed to recover steel from the building for testing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How am in wrong?

The final report on WTC contridicts the original model. The oringinal model states that neither the plane impacts or fires were the cause of the collapse.

You are wrong because you are completely ignoring the fact that NIST did an error analysis, they investigated the magnitude of their errors and produced an upper and lower bound model. They found that within this margin of error they matched visual evidence correctly and this model resulted in collapse.

Again and for the last time I will ask, how does NISTs model contradict?

Originally posted by exponent
Again and for the last time I will ask, how does NISTs model contradict?

As already stated the original model states that neither the plane impact or fire casued the collapse, other NIST reports go along with this except the final report.

Also that fact that NIST failed to do a proper investigationof buidling 7.

So how can we trust the NIST reports?

Why does the NIST report need 2500 x 1500 watt stove heat to initiate collapse? It is beyond the stretch of imagination to think that there was that much heat in WTC1-2-7. Incomprehensible. The report was written to draw the focus away from CD events and facts.. It is a disingenuous and fabricated collection of smoke and mirrors to screen and deflect the actual CD event.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Why does the NIST report need 2500 x 1500 watt stove heat to initiate collapse?

The NIST reports have been proven to be mostly fantasy, they have failed to do proper investigations.

reply to post by Newtons.Bit


Indeed. I am finding that your values are more correct. I think that the mechanical engineering site that Valhall posted was either for short pieces or not for A36 steel.

Anyway, here's an unbiased site (I think because it's from '87 and from Canada) that shows you were the more correct one for the calculations. Although, they say 40% but I won't split hairs.

Both the yield stress and modulus of elasticity of steel, the two material properties most important in determining load-carrying capacity, decrease considerably with increasing temperatures (Figure 5).12 At a temperature of 593 ° C,these values will have fallen by at least 40% compared to ambient room temperature levels, meaning that the strength of the steel member will be barely sufficient to resist applied loads (assuming normal safety factors).

irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...

BTW, not that I'm calling AISC biased in any way.

Also, I know what you mean about technical writing. My reports still come back 3, 4 times sometimes. I recently bought a book called "Engineering Your Writing Success". So far, it's a pretty good book.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As already stated the original model states that neither the plane impact or fire casued the collapse, other NIST reports go along with this except the final report.

You are incorrect, please stop simply repeating yourself. I have explained in detail why you are wrong.

So how can we trust the NIST reports?

Your trust is not needed, they stand on their own merit

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Why does the NIST report need 2500 x 1500 watt stove heat to initiate collapse? It is beyond the stretch of imagination to think that there was that much heat in WTC1-2-7. Incomprehensible. The report was written to draw the focus away from CD events and facts.. It is a disingenuous and fabricated collection of smoke and mirrors to screen and deflect the actual CD event.

It does not, you have not read the report correctly or you are repeating lies from someone else. I have yet to respond to one of the posts from the previous thread but if you actually read the report you'll find this criticism is invalid.

Originally posted by exponent
Your trust is not needed, they stand on their own merit

Thats funny since NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing, so how can NIST reports have merit if they cannot even do a proper investigation?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny since NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing, so how can NIST reports have merit if they cannot even do a proper investigation?

We have been through this several times. Without wishing to present a false dichotomy the only choices remaining after this statement are:

• FEMAs report is the only 'proper' investigation
  
• No reports are 'proper'

Unless you can present a third option, these are your only choices. Do you agree?