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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper what he is trying to say is, that you are too emotionally invested in your own ideas to participate in an objective debate and I am getting the same impression.




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper what he is trying to say is, that you are too emotionally invested in your own ideas to participate in an objective debate and I am getting the same impression.


Just calls 'em as I sees 'em. Someone writies something nonsensical, like how heat doesn't expand steel then I may chime in. Now if the other party chooses to pretend that they used words they didn't use, then that's not my problem! Don't know where you find all the "emotion"!



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually,out of the 4 assemblies they used, one was not totally covered in SFRM. The bridging trusses were not coated and protected from over spray.

4.3.1 Table 4 of the NCSTAR 1-6B is where it is explained.

Also, on page 4 of the document, there is a nice mention of the original design plan and why they performed test #4.

There's your proof. Read the results.


So is somebody claiming when the impact knocked off the fireproofing it only knocked it off the bridges?

None of the tested sections failed. Until they test a bare floor component AND IT FAILS nothing has been accomplished. If they test a bare one and it DOES NOT FAIL then all of this talk about missing fireproofing causing the problem is RUBBISH.

What do you think you are accomplish by brining up a partially bare floor assembly that STILL DID NOT FAIL? I am not even going to research it because none of them failed. If anything you just hurt your own case.

psik




reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


There is no case. You made a statement and I proved it wrong. They did that for comparison. Read. The reason they did it is that was what the fire code was in the late 60's when it was being developed and was changed through the decades and was upgraded again after 9/11 based on NIST's recommendations.

If they fail wile fireproofed, don't you think they would fail without? Not sure what you think did not fail. You read the reports but again you do not want too.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All of the TALK in the NIST report of what the floors did in the buildings is NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. But the sections that tested in furnaces had insulation. So the SCIENCTIFIC thing to do would be to test them without insulation. So why haven't they done something that obvious.

Because then they would have had to carry out tens of tests to experiment with different fire temperatures, truss lengths, fireproofing thickness, applied load etc. There's a reason engineering organisations all use FEA simulation. So they don't have to spend time and energy doing something physically if it can be well simulated.


Because if the don't SAG or FAIL under those conditions then the NIST will be proven to be idiots.

Wait, didn't you just say this?

They only SAGGED 14 inches in the furnaces

You don't think a truss nearly twice as long, with less insulation will sag? If you've done your research you know what relation truss length has to the midspan deflection. Perhaps you could show us the calculations.


So you provide evidence that they tested trusses without insulation.

Different series of tests, part of the behaviour of structural steel test series. I'd link you to it now but I am on my laptop and don't have the reports to hand.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Temperature of the steel when it was fixed. The trusses were fixed at both ends. That and the weight they were carrying were the reason they sagged and not blew out threw the side of the exterior wall.


Temperature of the steel when it was fixed? What does that mean? Again I think the term you're looking for is ambient temperature.

Again you are showing you fail to understand how steel expands. It sags because of the expansion, not the weight. I know you understand steel expands when heated, so where do you think that expansion will go when the steel is braced between two columns? It can't expand out pushing the columns, if it could it would have, so it does the obvious sags to the path of least resistance.

Sorry if real world physics explanations confuse your layman's view of everything.

But IF it was the weight what difference would that make? They are still not going to exert a pulling force if they are sagging because they can no longer hold the weight, they sag because they can not pull in the columns. IF they could pull in the columns they wouldn't sag in the first place. Your imagination is not considering known physics, probably because you have never taken a physics course.



Typical. Your lack of writing skills are never in question, huh? Just a coincidence that everybody "misunderstands" you the same way.


It's not me you are misunderstanding, it's the physics principles presented to you. You fail to understand anyone who tries to explain this to you. I have also explained it in different ways and you still manage to twist what I say.
It's easy to debate someone when you make things up and misrepresent what had been said, I call it cheating.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No, it is very relevant.

wtc.nist.gov...

Please look at #4, 6, 7-14 and 21. All fire related based on their research.

Also, your opinion is not fact no matter how many times you repeat it.


They are just safety recommendations, none of those prove a steel framed building can completely collapse from sagging trusses. If there is a specific point in there you want to me to address then show it, don't tell me to just read stuff, or else I'll just tell you to go read a physics book.

Why do you keep avoiding explaining how the towers globally collapsed, after initiation, using the known laws of motion?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no case. You made a statement and I proved it wrong. They did that for comparison. Read. The reason they did it is that was what the fire code was in the late 60's when it was being developed and was changed through the decades and was upgraded again after 9/11 based on NIST's recommendations.

If they fail wile fireproofed, don't you think they would fail without? Not sure what you think did not fail. You read the reports but again you do not want too.


They DID NOT FAIL! That is the point. And they applied DOUBLE the expected load. So the one you claim was partially bare did not fail either. In TWO HOURS. So how did the south tower come down in less than ONE HOUR?


Slide 20:The physical tests – floor failure?NCSTAR 1-6B Underwriters Laboratories contracted to perform fire resistance tests of floor assembly models Two models had “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 in, one had “as specified” fireproofing of 0.5 in, and one had essentially no fireproofing. Twice the known WTC floor load applied After two hours in the furnace, none of them collapsed, and there was minimal sagging

www.slideserve.com...

psik
edit on 23-4-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
they sag because they can not pull in the columns. IF they could pull in the columns they wouldn't sag in the first place. Your imagination is not considering known physics, probably because you have never taken a physics course.

For someone who's accusing people of not taking physics courses, this seems a particularly poor explanation. The thermal expansion certainly did help the sagging, because they were restrained, but it does so also by breaking elements in the truss. There is no "cannot hold weight", as this would result in the weight falling through the trusses.

They clearly could hold the weight, just that their geometry has been altered due to the reduction in the elastic modulus of the steel. If you really truly believe that sagging trusses can't exert an inward force, please illustrate this in some detail so we can have a proper debate.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


So we are still making excuses for the fact that NIST didn't prove anything?

What else is there to "discuss"?


How about, where did NIST try to explain the multitude of eyewitness accounts of explosions? Or any other investigation? There's something we can discuss.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to "discuss"?

I listed the topics to discuss quite clearly:

  • Fireproofing failure meant some trusses were unprotected or severely under-protected
  • Unprotected or semi-protected trusses in fire will heat quickly
  • Heated trusses will sag due to a variety of reasons
  • Sagging trusses will exert a greater horizontal force than those deflecting only at design requirements


If you want to add something to discuss then please wait until after we have discussed these points. If you can quote some specific examples or give some specific papers, then we can add it to the queue.

I see no arguments against #1 or #2 so far, any takers?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to "discuss"?

I listed the topics to discuss quite clearly:

  • Fireproofing failure meant some trusses were unprotected or severely under-protected
  • Unprotected or semi-protected trusses in fire will heat quickly
  • Heated trusses will sag due to a variety of reasons
  • Sagging trusses will exert a greater horizontal force than those deflecting only at design requirements



And I have responded to all of that here and on other threads, but like others have said, it doesn't get to the core of the issue in the first place.

I said NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers "collapsed." How do any of the things you listed contradict this? They don't.



If you want to add something to discuss then please wait until after we have discussed these points.


As far as trying to use those points to establish that NIST proved why the towers came down, that "discussion" was dead on arrival. We have told you repeatedly that what you are posting, is still not proof of why the buildings exploded in all directions. You must realize this yourself because you deflect onto those points instead of ever trying to show where NIST actually proved anything, ie with testing and reproducing results, ie real science.

You just are not making the connection of "no proof," with the beliefs you choose to have faith in. When you make that connection, and realize that you also have no proof or any other logical reason to have faith in NIST, you will be agnostic on the issue, and you will no longer suffer from blind religious faith. So far this is not you, and instead you are like a religious person who is unable to assimilate all the relevant information, because you don't want to, and there is no reasoning with that.


I see no arguments against #1 or #2 so far, any takers?


No one is going to argue with you that fire will heat up steel.

If you think this is where the disagreement is, then you really are not paying attention to anything anyone posts. (No real surprise, I'm sure everyone responding to you has realized as much already.)



Why do you think NIST ignored all the eyewitness testimony, among other evidence? I notice you ignored that too.
edit on 23-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I said NIST did not prove why the Twin Towers "collapsed." How do any of the things you listed contradict this? They don't.

The idea is to provide a solid foundation to discuss the more contentious issues. I've said this a few times in this thread now and I don't understand why you don't get it.

If we start arguing about the collapse right now, you could argue that 'trusses cant pull in', and we would have to go to that discussion and resolve that before discussing the collapse any further.

If we go through the NIST report and collect criticisms, we can come to a consensus before we argue more contentious issues.


You just are not making the connection of "no proof," with the beliefs you choose to have faith in. When you make that connection, and realize that you also have no proof or any other logical reason to have faith in NIST, you will be agnostic on the issue, and you will no longer suffer from blind religious faith. So far this is not you, and instead you are like a religious person who is unable to assimilate all the relevant information, because you don't want to, and there is no reasoning with that.

On the contrary, I am posting this thread in order for people to disprove what I believe in and so far have had some good discussions, I hope this continues. It is not a matter of faith, there is no invisible evidence or dogmatic adherence.


No one is going to argue with you that fire will heat up steel.

Guess you haven't read this thread.


Why do you think NIST ignored all the eyewitness testimony, among other evidence? I notice you ignored that too.

They didn't. They conducted a number of in-person interviews. An awful lot of details from them are contained in NCSTAR 1-7 and 1-8.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Here's my thoughts on this heated truss hypothesis. I get very sceptical when I read this about WTC2:

"The earliest observations of inward bowing for WTC2 were made at 9:21 a.m., 18 min after impact when the east wall was observed to be bowing inward between Column 301 and Column 345 between Floor 78 and Floor 83. At this time, NIST estimated the maximum inward deformation to be about 10 in. at Floors 80 and 81 between Column 322 and Column 329." - NCSTAR 1-6d pg 52

What caused this so early? I look in NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9-AppxC and I don't see the fires that would explain this. If we look at the following figures:

Figure 9-1 at 9:03

Figure 9-9 at 9:06:53

Figure 9-13 at 9:11

Figure 9-14 & 9-15 at 9:12

Figure 9-21 at 9:18:38

Where's the fires on floors 78 through 81 to allow this bowing at 9:21? Did their trusses heat up enough to sag? Or were they compressed in? Or something else?

In fact this is what they say about the fires on the east side:

"For WTC 2, it was more difficult to generalize the behavior of the fires. From the visual evidence, the fires did not appear to spread as rapidly nor burn as intensely as those in WTC 1. Because the airplane swept through a large expanse of the east side of the building, the fires were not as intense as would be expected along the east face..." - NCSTAR pg 1-5f pg 107

So where's the analysis of figures 9-15? Or 9-21? Did these deflections just appear in 9 minutes? Or in 3? If the first 10 inches occurred so quickly, why did the rate over the next 32 minutes not equal or surpass that, even after more evident intense fires appeared in that area?

Where's their analysis of the 16 pictures they included for the period between 9:21 (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure 6-17) and 9:53 (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure 6-19)? Was this a gradual increase in deflection? Or was this more of a sudden deflection?

So my thought is, was the inward bowing caused by the fires or was it due to movements in the building? How'd they prove it was the fires when there was no evidence of fire (i.e. NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Appx C Figures 9-19 and Figures 9-34)?

That's just some of my thoughts. I'm skeptical about WTC1, too, but it's easier to deal with one at a time.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
What caused this so early? I look in NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9-AppxC and I don't see the fires that would explain this. If we look at the following figures:
...
Where's the fires on floors 78 through 81 to allow this bowing at 9:21? Did their trusses heat up enough to sag? Or were they compressed in? Or something else?

The only real indicator in the visual evidence is the existence of a potentially compromised floor slab hanging in the windows. It's worthy of note that in the period around when the bowing was identified, the floor slab was also observed to move.


So where's the analysis of figures 9-15? Or 9-21? Did these deflections just appear in 9 minutes? Or in 3? If the first 10 inches occurred so quickly, why did the rate over the next 32 minutes not equal or surpass that, even after more evident intense fires appeared in that area?

The resolution and angle of those photos are not particularly conducive to the same sort of analysis as NIST used on other photos, but it is also something that could be tried using the images they provided. If it is considered that important a point I may give it a go, but I have never tried anything exactly like this and I doubt it's feasible. If you're not talking about NISTs deflection analysis then I don't know exactly what you mean.


So my thought is, was the inward bowing caused by the fires or was it due to movements in the building? How'd they prove it was the fires when there was no evidence of fire (i.e. NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Appx C Figures 9-19 and Figures 9-34)?

NIST simulated the fire behaviour in WTC2 based on the visual evidence and office contents. As they note in 1-6D where you were quoting from earlier:

The full floor analyses correctly predicted the floors that were pulled in, but underestimated the location of the pull-in forces across the width of the east wall, relative to that required to replicate the observed bowing.

They also give a number of reasons for their estimation errors elsewhere in the report.

If we look at NCSTAR 1-6C from page 133 onwards you'll see that their application of damage and the simulated fires results in the prediction of widespread floor failures along the east side of WTC2, leading to the amount of bowing despite the relatively minor fires. This also makes some intuitive sense, considering the angle and location of aircraft impact.



So to answer your question, there was significant damage to the floor system above floor 78 in WTC2 from the plane impact. This was followed by some relatively severe early fires ignited by jet fuel. This caused a significant inward pull on the entire western wall after a short period.

Whether the pull in forces were due to floor failures and disconnections, or sagging trusses alone, or a combination of the two is hard to say. NIST were not able to reproduce the WTC conditions accurately enough to tell, so as far as I am concerned they're both reasonable answers for this case.


That's just some of my thoughts. I'm skeptical about WTC1, too, but it's easier to deal with one at a time.

Agreed, and although this isn't technically dealing with the general questions I listed I can't exactly complain about proper specific analysis


Thanks for the excellent contribution, have a star on me.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



They clearly could hold the weight, just that their geometry has been altered due to the reduction in the elastic modulus of the steel. If you really truly believe that sagging trusses can't exert an inward force, please illustrate this in some detail so we can have a proper debate.


Do you (or any other kind gentlemen) have the value for a typical or worst case mid-span deflection of one of these trusses at just before the point of column failure? I wouldn't mind running a couple of calculations with it.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Do you (or any other kind gentlemen) have the value for a typical or worst case mid-span deflection of one of these trusses at just before the point of column failure? I wouldn't mind running a couple of calculations with it.

Cheers.

It's a difficult question, we know that with creep added truss deflection can hit over 45 inches. However, it was not at midspan as this also involves damage to the actual truss.

Probably the best place to look is NISTs full floor analysis models, they produced a rough summary of conditions and disconnections etc.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Just as a note, when I said "entire western wall" a couple posts ago that should have read "entire eastern wall". Sorry if that's confusing, it was the east wall of WTC2 that suffered this damage.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Azp420
Do you (or any other kind gentlemen) have the value for a typical or worst case mid-span deflection of one of these trusses at just before the point of column failure? I wouldn't mind running a couple of calculations with it.

Cheers.

It's a difficult question, we know that with creep added truss deflection can hit over 45 inches. However, it was not at midspan as this also involves damage to the actual truss.

Probably the best place to look is NISTs full floor analysis models, they produced a rough summary of conditions and disconnections etc.


Has this 45 inches ever been duplicated or actually witnessed or is it ONLY COMPUTER SIMULATIONS?

psik



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Has this 45 inches ever been duplicated or actually witnessed or is it ONLY COMPUTER SIMULATIONS?


I've never heard of any fire test on a truss that large. All of the literature I have come across refers to FEA simulation. NIST used the various physical tests they did to calibrate their software and obviously they did replicate similar behaviours with their physical tests. If you absolutely require a full scale test then you're going to have to start collecting donations I think.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Has this 45 inches ever been duplicated or actually witnessed or is it ONLY COMPUTER SIMULATIONS?


I've never heard of any fire test on a truss that large. All of the literature I have come across refers to FEA simulation. NIST used the various physical tests they did to calibrate their software and obviously they did replicate similar behaviours with their physical tests. If you absolutely require a full scale test then you're going to have to start collecting donations I think.


So somehow they got from 14 inches in two hours with double the expected load to 45 inches in less than ONE HOUR because that is the time the south tower came down in and how do they explain the 22 degree tilt in the broken top of the south tower?

I think some people have decided that they want to believe crap that is REALLY, REALLY DUMB.

psik
edit on 24-4-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join