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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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?


Because they did identify elements in excess of 250 C. (See my post above.) They identified two outer elements at about 600 C - that they state could have seen that elevated temperature in the debris pile.

And because they didn't JUST employ paint cracking for determination of temperatures seen by structural elements:


Annealing studies on recovered steels (from NIST NCSTAR 1-3E) established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. The microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire, based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.


BUT, to address your "paint cracking" question.



A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C. More than 170 areas were examined on 21 exterior panels. Note that these 21 panels represent only about 3 percent of the panels from fire-involved floors, and that results on these panels cannot be considered indicative of exposure of other panels. Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (note that exposure could have occurred pre-or post-collapse). These were:

WTC 1 east face floor 98 column 210 inner web
WTC 1 east face floor 92 column 236 spandrel and
WTC 1 north face floor 98 column 143 floor truss connector.


Going back to the methods other than paint cracking employed:


Four features were analyzed (when appropriate): (1) condition of the primer paint, (2) microstructure, (3) chemistry, and (4) hardness.


And how the presence of cracking should NOT be interpreted:


The presence of cracking of the paint does not necessarily mean that the base metal reached 250 C. Cracking of the paint, which was brittle, can occur due to mechanical damage, such as impact, abrasion, or deformation of the steel.



...over 90 percent of the paint results [on external panels] shows a "negative" conclusion indicating that these areas were not exposed to temperature excursions above 250 C.


And I was wrong, THREE external panels showed paint cracking that could indicate temperatures above 250 C.

Metallurgical analysis of components:


As this feature [spheroidization] was not observed in any of the four spandrel materials evaluated, it was believed that the spandrels were not exposed to this temperature or that if they were, it was for significantly less tim than 15 min.

In addition to the microstructural results, the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no deterioration of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.


Floor truss seats:


Conclusions for three of the four seats examined for mud cracking of the paint were either negative or inconclusive. The fourth seat, which supported the 99th floor of sample N-8, was found to have mud cracking on both the seat and the standoff plates; the spandrel to which the seat was attached did not have mud cracking of the paint.



As no major change to the microstructural features was observed in seats from panels C-40, M-2, and N-12, it is likely that the pre-collapse fire exposure was not severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure.


Summary


The majority of areas examined using the paint cracking technique had "negative" results, indicating that temperatures of the elements did not exceed 250 C, even though photographic evidence indicated that several locations experienced severe fire exposure, up to 15 min of direct flaming, prior to collapse.

The selected spandrel steels that were identified to have been exposed to severe fire events prior to the collpase of the building did not experience material degradation due to the exposure.

Results indicated that three of the four seats observed to be exposed to severe pre-collapse fire conditions did not experience significant degradation as a result of the exposure. Results from the seat taken from Panel N-8 indicate that this seat may have been exposed to elevated temperatures.

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.



[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
To heat steel quiclky, if you use air as the coupling agent, it will take a long time.
If the flame is actually touching the steel it will take less time.
If the fire is inside the steel as in a stove it will heat the fastest.
I would assume that the first instance was the highest percent of heat transfer in the towers.
A small fraction would be the second example.

Again air is a poor coupler to transfer heat from the source to the target.
Just like it is a poor coupler in explosions.
That is why we created contact demolitions.

The probability that a fire transferred heat via air to a sufficient amount of steel in WTC to cause a collapse is not negotiable.

The fires would travel and follow the fuel, sometimes coming close to the steel and sometimes going far away. Additionally with all the holes in the building a large portion of the heat rose and escaped into the atmosphere.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Because they did identify elements in excess of 250 C. (See my post above.) They identified two outer elements at about 600 C - that they state could have seen that elevated temperature in the debris pile.

[


That's something I didn't know - annealing etc.

However you still haven't answered the question - how are they supposed to positively id the core columns when the marking paint is gone?



[edit on 8-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

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?
Because they did identify elements in excess of 250 C. (See my post above.) They identified two outer elements at about 600 C - that they state could have seen that elevated temperature in the debris pile.
And because they didn't JUST employ paint cracking for determination of temperatures seen by structural elements:
Annealing studies on recovered steels (from NIST NCSTAR 1-3E) established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. The microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire, based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

That's something I didn't know - annealing etc.

However you still haven't answered the question - how are they supposed to positively id the core columns when the marking paint is gone?



[edit on 8-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]


Seymoir - they state they ID'd the referenced, tested specimens from both external and internal cores. Are you saying they lied when they did that?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Seymoir - they state they ID'd the referenced, tested specimens from both external and internal cores. Are you saying they lied when they did that?



I'm confused here by your statements.

From the first in the series of links you gave:

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!"

Explain to me what I'm missing. You say NIST says that they didn't find core columns that had seen more than 250C, then go on to argue that if they don't have steel that saw higher temps, then they shouldn't model it.

Are you saying now that they have positively id'ed core columns that saw higher temps?

If so, that kinda contradicts your first statement, doesn't it?

Or, if that's NOT what you're saying, then what's your point?

Are you agreeing with me that they didn't positively id core columns from the impact/fire zone because the marking paint was burned off?

Or are you now saying that they in fact DO have core samples that saw higher temps, and so to model that is fine.

Also, you haven't explained why you want to ignore the Cardington tests. If NIST doesn't address how fast steel can heat up, then that's a reason to remain skeptical. But it doesn't mean relevant info can't be searched out and applied. To reject that information I think is the furthest thing from being open minded. Griff has been referring to that site, so he's open to using that as an info source. Perhaps you should take his lead here...........

Anyways, I proved that your assertion that the truss steel couldn't get to 900C to be false. Your rejection of those tests is very telling, IMHO.....



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

I'm confused here by your statements.

From the first in the series of links you gave:

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!"

Explain to me what I'm missing. You say NIST says that they didn't find core columns that had seen more than 250C, then go on to argue that if they don't have steel that saw higher temps, then they shouldn't model it.

Are you saying now that they have positively id'ed core columns that saw higher temps?


No - please. I did not say that. What I said was that they identified all structural members for which they produce test data for. ???



Also, you haven't explained why you want to ignore the Cardington tests. If NIST doesn't address how fast steel can heat up, then that's a reason to remain skeptical. But it doesn't mean relevant info can't be searched out and applied. To reject that information I think is the furthest thing from being open minded. Griff has been referring to that site, so he's open to using that as an info source. Perhaps you should take his lead here...........


You seem to misunderstand my issues (and my position) about the WTC tower collapses. I have not rejected that the plane damage and resultant fires may have been solely responsible for the collapse. So if we were on a discussion thread about whether that was possible, I would be on the fence about that and the Cardington tests (along with many other sources of data) would be brought into the discussion. I'm on this thread (which is about the AE911 org, now isn't it???) to state that the NIST report - as a stand alone document - is not acceptable in either its methodology, ethics, inclusiveness or manipulation and interpretation of data.

So, does that make you understand more now? The Cardington tests are not in the NIST report, therefore, for what I am arguing, they have no relevance.


Anyways, I proved that your assertion that the truss steel couldn't get to 900C to be false. Your rejection of those tests is very telling, IMHO.....


I never asserted the truss steel couldn't get to 900 C. Go back and read every post I made in THIS thread and any other 911 thread I've posted in and see if I have EVER made a statement like that. That would be a ludicrous statement to make.

I stated the NIST report presented no data of tested specimens in excess of 250 C for the internal core column elements, and only 3 specimens of up to 600 C for the external core column elements but then went on to run their models at temperatures of 900 C and above without data from specimens to back it.

That should clear that up.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


They were charged with investigating the collapses, and ways to prevent another building failure. The purpose is to prevent another collapse and loss of life in the future.

So then what exactly do you propose that NIST should have done?

They don't have the steel to back their findings....... so what do they do?

Throw their hands in the air and say "Sorry, can't help you. We don't have the steel to back our findings. So we're not gonna publish anything. Too bad we can't help design safer structures, not our problem"??????

Or should they have done exactly as they did, and make the best estimate they could with the tools at hand?

You can't, in good conscience, accuse NIST of manipulating data, etc without coming to the conclusion that they were "covering up". If you accept that they are neutral, then there is nothing to cover up for.

And once you go there, then ALL the issues I've posted about do in fact come into play.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
They don't have the steel because they didn't retrieve the steel. They didn't do their job. A job for which the taxpayers paid a great deal of money.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
They don't have the steel because they didn't retrieve the steel. They didn't do their job. A job for which the taxpayers paid a great deal of money.


I agree with you.

You avoided the questions.

What are your answers?


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I don't understand why people are excited about molten metal. Can anyone explain that?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
how are they supposed to positively id the core columns when the marking paint is gone?


Google is your friend: Appendix D: WTC Steel Data Collection, which explains how the tested steel members were ID'd and collected, with photos.

All steel was stenciled, and some was stamped as well (it is not clear if all was also stamped).



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't understand why people are excited about molten metal. Can anyone explain that?


Burning jet fuel and office contents cannot produce temperatures that can melt steel. That requires furnace-like conditions. Pools of molten metal were widely reported during the clean-up of ground zero by workers, firemen, police, and others.

This is a glaring anomaly that was ignored during the investigation and leads to the question, What huge energy input caused the metal to melt, and linger?

[edit on 9-9-2008 by gottago]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Valhall
They don't have the steel because they didn't retrieve the steel. They didn't do their job. A job for which the taxpayers paid a great deal of money.


I agree with you.

You avoided the questions.

What are your answers?


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]


You had several questions which I, apparently erroneously, took as rhetorical.

What should they do? Turn over all data and models to the public. And also publish the specificity of outcomes for the different scenarios they have already ran that didn't produce initiation of failure...as has already been requested by the families of 911 victims and soundly rejected by NIST.

cover-up? Well, I'm neither a LIHOP (unless you want to count complicity through incompetence) or a MIHOP, so the only cover-up that I could even postulate would be if the infiltration of the building by the terrorist group could be seen as revealing too much incompetence and vulnerability on the government's part and therefore they weren't allowed to look at it. But that's just me speculating. If you want twist my displeasure at NIST's unacceptable and unethical work into me claiming there is a cover-up I can't stop you, but I didn't say that.

Hopefully that addresses everything.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

What should they do? Turn over all data and models to the public. And also publish the specificity of outcomes for the different scenarios they have already ran that didn't produce initiation of failure..



That's reasonable.

But I still have trouble with this statement-

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.


As we agree, they are tasked with finding the cause of the collapse,etc. But, they have no core columns from the impact/fire area.

So what do they do at this point? Forget about that it would have been best to actually have that steel, we agree about that. THAT would have been the best way to do their job. But like I've been repeating, those columns were id'ed with marking paint, which would have burned off if it it were in the fire zone, so there was no way to positively id them. This is an inescapable point that I honestly don't see you taking into account.

How are they supposed to do their job without modelling and sims, given these factors? It is the only way to do their job at this point. Agree?

Simply criticizing NIST, because they don't have the steel is a dead end. It leads nowhere, unless you have a suggestion on how to complete their mission.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

If this is the case, can I ask you why the steel is fireproofed?


For pure safety standards. Period.

Okay, my turn. Two questions. If the steel was fireproofed, as proven, and then subsequently knocked off during the impact of the planes, then why did the steel below the fires give way with zero resistence? Don't say they didn't give way with zero resistence because the math says that they did.

Question two, since the claim is that the fire proofing was knocked off during the impact of the planes which led to the weakening of the steel, then why did the steel in the WTC 7 weaken at much cooler temps? Don't give me the 'thermal expansion' new theory BS that NIST is trying to force everyone to swallow. The fire proofing was still there thus the steel was protected.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
Okay, my turn. Two questions. If the steel was fireproofed, as proven, and then subsequently knocked off during the impact of the planes, then why did the steel below the fires give way with zero resistence? Don't say they didn't give way with zero resistence because the math says that they did.

That's a nice way of trying to avoid answering questions. What math says there was 0 resistance? The fact of the matter is that the buildings did not accelerate at free fall speed, and were approx 2/3 to 3/4 that. This results in large amounts of energy being consumed in 'resistance'. Watch any video of the collapse and you will see the disconnected external pieces accelerating faster than the collapse front.


Question two, since the claim is that the fire proofing was knocked off during the impact of the planes which led to the weakening of the steel, then why did the steel in the WTC 7 weaken at much cooler temps? Don't give me the 'thermal expansion' new theory BS that NIST is trying to force everyone to swallow. The fire proofing was still there thus the steel was protected.

WTC7s failure mechanism was entirely different to the towers. Some steel approached the temperatures predicted in the towers, but not much. What is implausible about thermal expansion breaking connections?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
WTC7s failure mechanism was entirely different to the towers. Some steel approached the temperatures predicted in the towers, but not much. What is implausible about thermal expansion breaking connections?


What is implausible is that those connections just happened to give way ALL at once and the entire building (a rectangle) fell at once. A uniform collapse.

As for the math:

vf=g·t

or for distance rather:

d = 0.5 g · t2

.5 (10/S2) x (10)2 will equal 5 x 100 or 500 meters (1500 feet)

This states that the top of the buildings 1368' and 1362' respectively. One building fell in under 10 seconds and the other right around 10 seconds. Where is the resistence you are talking about? I don't see it. If there was ANY resistence from the undamaged steel structure below the impact zones then there would have been a LOT more resistence. Enough so that the tops of the buildings above the damage zones would have fallen to the area of LEAST resistance which was to any other side but DOWN. Tower 1 began its decent with a tilt to the right (from the cameras viewpoint) which would have continued with the INTACT steel support below it. However, miraculously, the structure below simply gives way and sucks the towers decent back into a straight line.

Is that the math you were talking about? Because I HAVE watched the videos. Probably more times than is healthy.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Simply criticizing NIST, because they don't have the steel is a dead end. It leads nowhere, unless you have a suggestion on how to complete their mission.


I have answered this more than once now. All facets of this question. You even stated in response that is was a reasonable expectation.

I think we've circled this tree long enough.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg


This states that the top of the buildings 1368' and 1362' respectively. One building fell in under 10 seconds and the other right around 10 seconds.


This is incorrect. Neither building fell in, at or under 10 seconds. The fastest collapse time for either building has been placed at 14 seconds. I believe it is closer to 16 seconds.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join