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.

 

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

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

1- Of all the pictures and videos I've seen, I guess I missed those.

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

3-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?

4-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?



1- yes you have.

2-YOU say that it doesn't fit the data.

3- this is YOUR analysis.

4- this is YOUR conclusion.

If you're going to disagree with the NIST report, the best thing to do would be to show why they are wrong first, and then show why yours are correct.

To simply say that they got it wrong doesn't mean a thing.....




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

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.


It actually seems to me that you give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-establishment and assume that the engineers are always wrong unless someone can explain to you, over your non-understanding of what they're talking about, what they're talking about.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Valhall

1- Of all the pictures and videos I've seen, I guess I missed those.

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

3-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?

4-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?



1- yes you have.

2-YOU say that it doesn't fit the data.

3- this is YOUR analysis.

4- this is YOUR conclusion.

If you're going to disagree with the NIST report, the best thing to do would be to show why they are wrong first, and then show why yours are correct.

To simply say that they got it wrong doesn't mean a thing.....



In all fairness, Valhall has linked to ATS threads where more precise information is given, you can't expect the person to keep labouring and typing in front of the computer with pages and pages of text to only repeat what was previously written.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit

It actually seems to me that you give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-establishment and assume that the engineers are always wrong unless someone can explain to you, over your non-understanding of what they're talking about, what they're talking about.


Actually, it seems to me you didn't read very close. I am an engineer.

Me not have big problem following the bouncing ball!



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit

It actually seems to me that you give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-establishment and assume that the engineers are always wrong unless someone can explain to you, over your non-understanding of what they're talking about, what they're talking about.


Actually, it seems to me you didn't read very close. I am an engineer.

Me not have big problem following the bouncing ball!



Sorry, I was referring to NIST engineers, not engineers in general. The confusion is my fault.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


1- yes you have.

2-YOU say that it doesn't fit the data.

3- this is YOUR analysis.

4- this is YOUR conclusion.

If you're going to disagree with the NIST report, the best thing to do would be to show why they are wrong first, and then show why yours are correct.

To simply say that they got it wrong doesn't mean a thing.....


I did that. I did that very thing. Did you not read a single link I gave you? Did you not read anything?

*smacks Seymour's butt* Pay attention.

There's something you are going to learn about me real quick. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, so it's okay if you don't accept anything I say to you. The only thing I tend to get an upset stomach over is some one who doesn't even bother reading the material before they jump to their conclusion.

I have an upset stomach right now.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

In all fairness, Valhall has linked to ATS threads where more precise information is given, you can't expect the person to keep labouring and typing in front of the computer with pages and pages of text to only repeat what was previously written.



I HAVE read those threads.

I see no reasonable reason to dispute NIST from the questions she's asked.

On the other hand, she gives conclusions based on incredulity. Just look at her previous post. They are full of how can this be? and how come? and similar type entries.

This can be expected from laymen, such as myself, and presumably, you. And so some leeway should be given.

But since she's an engineer, she should be given less leeway and be expected to back up her statements with calcs. To think that an engineer, while using this qualification, would presume to expect any more weight be given to her statements is borderline unethical, IMHO....



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Lies, all lies.

I went point by point. If you lazy johnny-cum-latelies would take the time to use the search function you'd find about 4 years worth of work on this. By me, by Griff, by bsbray, by billybob, by a myriad of people who have actually put the work behind their words.

The links I gave - while not exhaustive - do have an engineering critique of the methodology and assumptions made by the NIST.

You're just being dishonest now.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

*smacks Seymour's butt*



Careful there, I'm starting to like you. You might make me become a troofer yet...

Case in point from just the first link:

Valhall "2. NIST if you state you did not find evidence of core columns being exposed to temperatures in excess of 250 C then you should not model with higher temperatures you have no test data to support. And you CAN'T reject the request to model at the temperature limit your data DOES support!"

This ignores a LOT of discussion on exactly WHY NIST was unable to id steel from the fire zone. They also ran sims that agreed with temp predictions of the columns that DID identify.

Let's break that down-

did not find evidence - because the columns were id'ed by the PAINT markings on them. The paint burns off at 250C. Additionally, the reaction of the paint to temps BELOW 250C is a good method of determining exactly what temp they saw below that mark. So any columns that they had in posession, that WERE above 250C, had no identifying marks left on them. There WERE stamp marks, but this can only be a general indicator of where they came from. Each column was 3 stories high, and there were several of the same size in each 3 story grouping. Check here : wtcmodel.wikidot.com... So those only generally id'ed columns are of limited value. The potential area that they came from would be too great. I'm also unaware of any techniques to determine the temps encountered above 250C, and in the range quoted by NIST anyways, but would be willing to hear of them.

So instead, NIST ran sims, based on fire loads, etc. And guess what? The temps predicted in the sim matched VERY WELL with the positively id'ed columns. That means that the sim is fairly correct, and within reason. A sim IS a test, regardless of your statement above.

The alternative is to collect columns that DON'T have a positive id, and to try and make some conclusions on that, forgetting the sim tests.

Sims are used everywhere. I suppose you use them too in your field. Do you trust them?

Why wouldn't you trust NIST's?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Valhal, could you post some links to what you think are your most relevant works on NIST? I'd like to take a look.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Well, if I'd known that smacking your backside was all it took for you to be a bit nicer to me, I'd a smacked a long time ago!

Yes, I have a problem with the sims. But I also have valid reason for that problem. Actually several valid reasons.

First, they never found a single core column that exhibited exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

Second, they only found two (I believe that number is correct, but I'm going off memory) external columns that had seen temperatures in excess of 250 C and they wrote both of those off due to the fact they were concerned the higher temperatures they were exposed to were most likely encountered in the fires of the debris pile.

Third, they state that no structural element was ever exposed to the elevated temperatures for the full time period between impact and collapse. When you consider that we're talking between 45 minutes and an hour and 15 minutes max for the time between impact and collapse, and them saying no member was exposed to elevated temperatures (that reads fire) even that long - that's really starting to cap what maximum temperature the columns could get to! In fact, it makes it virtually impossible to get them very high. And that goes with the data the NIST collected when testing the inner and outer columsn of the building.

You state the NIST sims predicted matched the id'd columsn VERY WELL. No they didn't. Else they wouldn't have gone above 250 C (see paragraph above).

A sim is NOT a test. It's a simulation. It's only as good as the data put into it. I could run a sim right now on any given occurence and write an entire paper on the simulation results, but that paper would be worthless if the parameters I set the simulation up for were unrealistic or unfounded.

That's what NIST did.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
Valhal, could you post some links to what you think are your most relevant works on NIST? I'd like to take a look.


Well, I posted this earlier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure if it is the MOST relevant. But each thread linked has very relevant posts from several extremely diligent members on this subject. So I think I'll stick with that list.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, if I'd known that smacking your backside was all it took for you to be a bit nicer to me, I'd a smacked a long time ago!



Just curious... Um... Val.. Can you please give me one of those?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

1-First, they never found a single core column that exhibited exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

2-You state the NIST sims predicted matched the id'd columsn VERY WELL. No they didn't. Else they wouldn't have gone above 250 C (see paragraph above).



1- wrong. They were unable to id any columns, because the paint burns off at 250C. If you reject that, can you tell me why?

2- wrong again. The 2 core columns were from the upper and lower boundaries of the fire zone. The NIST sim predicted that those core columns would see about 250C. Which is exactly what the paint analysis told them.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

1- wrong. They were unable to id any columns, because the paint burns off at 250C. If you reject that, can you tell me why?

2- wrong again. The 2 core columns were from the upper and lower boundaries of the fire zone. The NIST sim predicted that those core columns would see about 250C. Which is exactly what the paint analysis told them.


I reject that because they state their test findings for interior columns and exterior columns. They are fairly explicit about that. Are you rejecting their statements of metallurgical test data? If so, why? Do you have something to dismiss their statements?

The NIST FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE MODELING took the temperatures to over 900 C. There's nothing else I can say to you other than that. They couldn't get the floor trusses to fail at temperatures below that, so they continued to increase the temperatures in the model.

I have provided links to substantiate that. You haven't provided anything to refute it.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

In fact, it makes it virtually impossible to get them very high. And that goes with the data the NIST collected when testing the inner and outer columsn of the building.



So I guess that the Cardington fire tests, where a wood fire drove steel of a similar size to near 1000C in 20 minutes was faked?

Granted, this was unprotected steel, but if you don't believe that 200 tons of 500 mph shrapnel couldn't at least partially remove drywall and SFRM (check out the test results for partially removed insulation, and/or reports/photos of SFRM being absent on the trusses) ...... then I don't know what to say.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, if I'd known that smacking your backside was all it took for you to be a bit nicer to me, I'd a smacked a long time ago!



Just curious... Um... Val.. Can you please give me one of those?


Well, if you still had that dude avatar I could. But I'd feel all dirty spanking Sarah's butt.

pfffft



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Valhall

In fact, it makes it virtually impossible to get them very high. And that goes with the data the NIST collected when testing the inner and outer columsn of the building.



So I guess that the Cardington fire tests, where a wood fire drove steel of a similar size to near 1000C in 20 minutes was faked?

Granted, this was unprotected steel, but if you don't believe that 200 tons of 500 mph shrapnel couldn't at least partially remove drywall and SFRM (check out the test results for partially removed insulation, and/or reports/photos of SFRM being absent on the trusses) ...... then I don't know what to say.


We're analyzing something unrelated to the towers now, right? Because we don't need to look at information OUTSIDE the report in order to review the report. If there is something OUTSIDE the report that is critical to the veracity of the report, it will be INSIDE the report - right? Let's stick to the NIST report, okay?

After all, the NIST mandated with giving a report of what caused the failure of these buildings. If they needed to point at something else - they needed to report at something else. That would be a substantial part of MY POINT.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

I reject that because they state their test findings for interior columns and exterior columns.



Correct, they stated their test findings on core columns that they were able to id at 250C.

I should be more specific - why do you reject the claim that paint burns off at 250C, and so they wouldn't be able to positively id those that saw above 250C?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

We're analyzing something unrelated to the towers now, right? Because we don't need to look at information OUTSIDE the report in order to review the report. If there is something OUTSIDE the report that is critical to the veracity of the report, it will be INSIDE the report - right? Let's stick to the NIST report, okay?



Can you point to the portion of the NIST report that says that unprotected steel DOESN'T heat quickly?

Or are you using info from outside the NIST too?

But here's where you're going off the rails - basically, you're claiming that steel can't heat quickly. I've given proof that you're wrong in that assumption. Most people, if they have questions about this issue, and since NIST didn't directly address it, will look to other sources for verification that it is reasonable.

Your stance is that since NIST didn't address this, then the worst can be assumed. This is the exact opposite of using an engineer's mindset to prove a point.

Why do that?

Why not remain neutral on the issue until real proof can be found?

I have provided that proof.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join