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

I'm going to state again what I stated early on (I believe in my first post on this thread)...

To center on two people debating, or any one person's theory within the AE911 group of signators is to diminish what the group of signators as a whole represents. It is a rather large number of professionals who have found the tremendously important mandate given by the American people to both the NIST as well as the 911 Commission unfulfilled.

It's a group of professionals that reject the flawed approach, methodology, dismissal of evidence, and interpretation of data by those two investigative groups.

Any given signator of the group should be able to stand or fall on their own ideas and theories without it being applied to the whole body of members...because the group does not have "a theory".

reply to post by Valhall


A&E does have a theory. Richard Gage the founder claims all 3 towers were demolished via a controlled demolition.

That is a theory.

Edit:

From the home page:

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

[edit on 7-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, I understand what you are listing there - please note though that each reference you gave are specific theories to individual people - not an organization. Here's the deal. After several years of researching this and arguing with kooky no-plane people and manipulative panhandling truthers, I felt that signing my name to the AE911 petition was a way to voice along with other professionals (irrespective of whether we are like thinking beyond the specificity of the petition) to try to get the investigation re-opened.

In other words, I don't have to believe like any given person in that organization past the point of this "the NIST and 911 commission work was grossly flawed, manipulated, and had tremendous data gaps...we need a new report".

So, it doesn't bother me if a given signator has some theory I can't accept - that's not why I joined the group.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

This is exactly why I joined the group also. Nice to see you around Valhall. Watch though, I have been accussed of being a leader in the truth movement because I listed my name on the petition and voice my opinion here. Even though I agree with 80-90% (around about) with the government's findings.

More on topic. What are your thoughts on the new NIST report?

[edit on 9/7/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Come on Griff.... Don't be so humble. You know you're the "Lead Truther Engineer" on ATS !!!

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Valhall

 

A&E does have a theory. Richard Gage the founder claims all 3 towers were demolished via a controlled demolition.

The first sentence is wrong. The second sentence is right. Mr. Gage's theory is not the body of signator's theory. We (the signators) do not have a collective theory.

I think I've made that clear.

What I'm saying is - I don't really care what Mr. Gage's theory is.

Originally posted by Valhall

It's a group of professionals that reject the flawed approach,

This is the key.

The group of people that were listed OBVIOUSLY used a flawed approach to come to their desire for another investigation.

What is not so obvious, is that the rest of "you" have also committed the same error.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


What is not so obvious, is that the rest of "you" have also committed the same error.

I'm sure we didn't, considering we all came to our conclusions as individuals. I guess there's the slim hope that over 300 professionals all committed different errors to come to the point of requesting a new investigation, but statistics wouldn't be on the side of that happening.

Thanks for the slight benefit of the doubt though.

Valhall: Do you have a cite for that truss model you were talking about? I'm curious about it.

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
Valhall: Do you have a cite for that truss model you were talking about? I'm curious about it.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you referring to something in one of the links I provided? I'll be glad to supply it if you'll clarify what you are referring to.

reply to post by Valhall


I was referring to this:

"To prove this, they first rebuilt a section of the floors and exterior columns, without fireproofing, with double the dead loads, and subjected them to 2000 degree heat for two hours. NB that already in the physical model all the parameters are far above those stated in their own report. In simple English, they stacked the deck. Big time."

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
reply to post by Valhall

 

I was referring to this:

"To prove this, they first rebuilt a section of the floors and exterior columns, without fireproofing, with double the dead loads, and subjected them to 2000 degree heat for two hours. NB that already in the physical model all the parameters are far above those stated in their own report. In simple English, they stacked the deck. Big time."

Oh! He's referring to the floor truss failure modeling in the NIST report. And he has described it perfectly...no flaws.

I will find that section of the report for you...brb.

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

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.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
reply to post by Valhall

 

I was referring to this:

"To prove this, they first rebuilt a section of the floors and exterior columns, without fireproofing, with double the dead loads, and subjected them to 2000 degree heat for two hours. NB that already in the physical model all the parameters are far above those stated in their own report. In simple English, they stacked the deck. Big time."

Oh! He's referring to the floor truss failure modeling in the NIST report. And he has described it perfectly...no flaws.

I will find that section of the report for you...brb.

Whoops, for some reason I thought you posted that. My bad.

Here you go.

Go to this portion of the report and start reading at about page 166 on.

wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
Here you go.

Go to this portion of the report and start reading at about page 166 on.

wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

I'm familiar with that section. I don't see anything in it that says that the NIST team doubled the dead loads and subjected it to 2000C heat for 2 hours. Nor am I familiar with any part of the WTC report that suggests that the trusses had to sag 52 inches due to heat to initiate collapse.

Originally posted by Valhall

I'm sure we didn't, considering we all came to our conclusions as individuals. I guess there's the slim hope that over 300 professionals all committed different errors to come to the point of requesting a new investigation, but statistics wouldn't be on the side of that happening.

Thanks for the slight benefit of the doubt though.

Well, gottago has already demonstrated this, and although I don't want to put words in your mouth, it seems like you agree with this statement.

It's false.

NIST didn't require 52 " of truss sagging. There is photographic evidence of a truss that broke from its mounting and was seen hanging in a window. This was estimated at 52". So this is a false misrepresentation of the NIST. It's a lie.

So like I said, while it's NOT obvious that the reasoning is flawed, it is indeed flawed.

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit

Originally posted by Valhall
Here you go.

Go to this portion of the report and start reading at about page 166 on.

wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

I'm familiar with that section. I don't see anything in it that says that the NIST team doubled the dead loads and subjected it to 2000C heat for 2 hours. Nor am I familiar with any part of the WTC report that suggests that the trusses had to sag 52 inches due to heat to initiate collapse.

Sorry, I didn't notice the temperature stated. So I was wrong to say he conveyed it flawless. They continued to increase the temperature to over 700C in order to get the trusses to walk off the connections. The temperatures they went to are unsupported.

They rejected their own fire tests because they didn't give them the results they were looking for. I forget what temperatures the tests saw - but they were rejected because they didn't support their preconceived conclusions.

Seymoir - I haven't said anything about inches of sag. See statement above - irrespective of how many "inches of sag" it took to get the floor to fail from the connection, they increased the temperature beyond what they had data to support, and jacked with the loadings in order to get them to fail.

yes - that's flawed, but pointing it out and taking issue with it isn't.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit

Originally posted by Valhall
Here you go.

Go to this portion of the report and start reading at about page 166 on.

wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

I'm familiar with that section. I don't see anything in it that says that the NIST team doubled the dead loads and subjected it to 2000C heat for 2 hours. Nor am I familiar with any part of the WTC report that suggests that the trusses had to sag 52 inches due to heat to initiate collapse.

Sorry, I didn't notice the temperature stated. So I was wrong to say he conveyed it flawless. They continued to increase the temperature to over 700C in order to get the trusses to walk off the connections. The temperatures they went to are unsupported.

They rejected their own fire tests because they didn't give them the results they were looking for. I forget what temperatures the tests saw - but they were rejected because they didn't support their preconceived conclusions.

Seymoir - I haven't said anything about inches of sag. See statement above - irrespective of how many "inches of sag" it took to get the floor to fail from the connection, they increased the temperature beyond what they had data to support, and jacked with the loadings in order to get them to fail.

yes - that's flawed, but pointing it out and taking issue with it isn't.

I don't think you quite understand what they were doing. They created a full-scale FEA model of a truss (very detailed, very complicated) and looked at that truss behavior at various different temperatures. They then extrapolated that complicated model to create less computationally complex elements for the main model. It's a simple idea. The fact that they went up to the limit state of the truss for the complex model doesn't mean that the global model had temperatures that would reflect that failure mode. Do you get what I'm saying?

Furthermore, the UL tests assumed fireproofing correctly installed and not blown off by the impact of a giant airliner. Even furthermore, the trusses sagging due to heat is not part the important part of the collapse initiation mechanism so this is all a red herring anyways.

Originally posted by Valhall

and jacked with the loadings in order to get them to fail.

They doubled the loading because the furnace was only 17', whereas the shortest truss was double that. So the load was doubled in an effort to simulate real world conditions.

So YOUR reasoning is flawed why you consider this test suspicious.

No Seymoir - you aren't reading well today.

I'm not talking about the actual fire tests. I'm talking about the model - the simulation that is published in the paper. The parameters they used in the software modeling of the floor truss failure. That's what I'm referring to.