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

Here...

This way I don't have to re-argue what I've previously argued.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

From NISTNCSTAR1-6 p.74: "The floor system gravity loads were approximately 80psf for dead and service live load."

That looks about right to me for a normal weight concrete composite floor. Can you clarify where you think they tweaked the loading?

Hi Newton,

Will you go back to the post I made right before yours and read the linked post? I detail what you are asking in that post.

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

Ahh ok then.

But I find this even stranger-

You are questioning why NIST increased the load factor to match debris loading, when the debris was photographed through the windows?

This seems reasonable to me.

If there was NO evidence of debris loading, then it would seem weird. But this just isn't the case.

Could you show me the pictures that back a 300% load increase? Of all the pictures and videos I've seen, I guess I missed those.

Now that we've got straight what the problems are with the NIST floor truss modeled failures (i.e. they don't live in the realm of reality), now let me ask you something else.

Why did they work so hard (including going to unfounded temperatures of 900 C and possibly above) to get a failure mode where the floor trusses sagged to the point they "walked off" the exterior truss connectors when the damage they record of the exterior truss connectors they collected and analyzed show that by majority the CONNECTORS failed - either in downward shear or in downward bending.

Why would they work so hard to make a floor failure model that didn't even match the data?

Also, if we are to buy the sagging, walking floor failure model why didn't any of the INTERIOR connectors fail? They were almost ALL intact. The interior portion of the building should be hotter than the exterior walls due to convection at the exterior and lack of same at the interior, but the floor connections remained intact at the interior core columns. What do you have to say about that?

Also, since NIST failed to address this perplexing situation, could you tell me what the core columns were doing during collapse becasue the specimens of outer truss connectors failing in a downward motion while the interior connections remaining intact gives the appearance that the floors were falling WITH the core columns but AHEAD OF the exterior columns.

Can you explain that for me?

NIST section on specimens collected:

wtc.nist.gov...

page 114 is where they start talking about exterior floor connectors.


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt



At this point, it doesn’t matter what Mark Roberts got wrong.
I believe, I recall him saying there was no explosion at the WTC.
So, you have at lease one statement he made that is wrong.

So since I did respond to you, please site what Mark Roberts got right with valid proof?
I also made it clear, where I stand with Mark Roberts and his credibility in another post on this thread. Mark Roberts can only give an opinion about 911 he has no science to back his ridiculous claims. Where is his written Hypothesis?
Please do not offer NIST absurd report.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

At this point, it doesn’t matter what Mark Roberts got wrong.
I believe, I recall him saying there was no explosion at the WTC.
So, you have at lease one statement he made that is wrong.

So since I did respond to you, please site what Mark Roberts got right with valid proof?
I also made it clear, where I stand with Mark Roberts and his credibility in another post on this thread. Mark Roberts can only give an opinion about 911 he has no science to back his ridiculous claims. Where is his written Hypothesis?
Please do not offer NIST absurd report.

And your reference that the NIST report is absurd is based on what, a guy who thinks dropping one cardboard box on top of another is an accurate representation of the WTC collapse?

Originally posted by cashlink
At this point, it doesn’t matter what Mark Roberts got wrong.

Yes it does matter. You have placed faith in a man (Richard Gage) who himself has not offered anything to support his movement.

So please, since you have not shown one error of Mark Roberts, perhaps you will be able to point me toward some evidence that Richard Gage has uncovered?

I believe, I recall him saying there was no explosion at the WTC.
So, you have at lease one statement he made that is wrong.

Nope, you're mistaken. He never said that.

So since I did respond to you, please site what Mark Roberts got right with valid proof?

You have responded to my post. You have not answered my question.

I also made it clear, where I stand with Mark Roberts and his credibility in another post on this thread. Mark Roberts can only give an opinion about 911 he has no science to back his ridiculous claims. Where is his written Hypothesis?
Please do not offer NIST absurd report.

Mark has a page here that details facts regarding 911:

source

Now, once again. After you are done reading his web pages....point out his errors.

Thanks

-TY-

reply to post by exponent


(I notice you completely fail to contest any of the fallacies I showed in your post and in fact have returned to rhetoric in attempt to convince people that we should listen to Richard Gage's authority, rather than his arguments. Tell me, do Controlled Demolitions typically spread debris over a large area destroying nearby buildings? No? Why is it Richard Gage claims this is a characteristic of destruction by explosives?)

Here we go again with your word games and twisting statement.

As far as Richard Gage I made myself clear, that I would take the word of a real architecture, not a tourist guide.

(Tell me, do Controlled Demolitions typically spread debris over a large area destroying nearby buildings? No?)

Care to validate your claim with proof?

Originally posted by cashlink
As far as Richard Gage I made myself clear, that I would take the word of a real architecture, not a tourist guide

So with that logic sir, in the events of 911, if you had a choice would you listen to a NASA scientist or a Biblical Theologian?

Thanks

-TY-

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


TY I have made myself very clear about this tour guide
Mark gets it all WRONG!

You have not answers any of my questions, which I would not expect.
I am not saying Gage has all the answers infact he doesn’t, but I find him more believe than a tour guide.
I am not going to debate Mark Roberts and Richard Gage “opinions” thank you.

reply to post by cashlink


Ok...Since you wont answer that. Do you care to answer my next question? About the NASA scientist?

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
That looks about right to me for a normal weight concrete composite floor. Can you clarify where you think they tweaked the loading?

I thought the floor sytem was lightweight concrete? Just the floors of the core where normal weight.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
So with that logic sir, in the events of 911, if you had a choice would you listen to a NASA scientist or a Biblical Theologian?

Actually, I'd listen to a real mechanical/aerospace engineer over a NASA "system safety manager" any day. Cheers Valhall.

But, we are getting off topic.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Enough! Let’s put things into perspective. Sometimes we forget that we are laymen forming opinions based on the information we read and hear. Each of us believes we have the best experts on our side and off we go. All of a sudden, we, including myself, are the experts! This is creating most of the friction that causes the ongoing feuding in these threads.

I will try to avoid “attacking” others who don’t share my opinions as long as they provide links to legitimate sources for their information. I hope we can return to debating instead of demeaning each other.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
So with that logic sir, in the events of 911, if you had a choice would you listen to a NASA scientist or a Biblical Theologian?

Actually, I'd listen to a real mechanical/aerospace engineer over a NASA "system safety manager" any day. Cheers Valhall.

But, we are getting off topic.

As far as structures go, you're better off ignoring both.

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit


As far as structures go, you're better off ignoring both.

Actually, I have no problem listening to Griff over either one of them. Cheers Griff!

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit


As far as structures go, you're better off ignoring both.

Actually, I have no problem listening to Griff over either one of them. Cheers Griff!

Perhaps what I should say is that you should focus on their arguments and calculations (if you can understand them) rather than any appeal to authority.

Just saying that one guy is a mechanical engineer, therefor he's right is a bad way to look at it. Gordon Ross is a mechanical engineer and his calculations were very, very wrong.

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit


Perhaps what I should say is that you should focus on their arguments and calculations (if you can understand them) rather than any appeal to authority.

Just saying that one guy is a mechanical engineer, therefor he's right is a bad way to look at it. Gordon Ross is a mechanical engineer and his calculations were very, very wrong.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to take no one's word for this. I was being glib because of Griff's background...that and I meant it as well. Griff's word is as important as either one of the guys being beat about.