"Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" Why not?

[FactCheck]

Would creating a group called "Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" (Or something else) help counter the so called scholars for 9/11 truth? Would civil engineers get involved to stop the nonsense?

I think a group like this could put the nail in the truther coffin but I don't think they would bother with such an org. I think it does deserve debate though. Maybe we should try? Is it a waste of time and why?

[Brainache]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?

[Unfit4Command]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?

But they're government engineers, so everything they say is a lie. Remember, working for a government agency automatically makes you a robot, who has no problem helping cover up false flag terror operations by the US government.

[FactCheck]

Isn't there already such an organisation? Called NITS or something?It's NIST and it doesn't include anyone who wants in. I'm talking about letting thousands join. Something where we can double check each member is a REAL CE. You know, a true scholars for truth. ;)

[Unfit4Command]

It's NIST and it doesn't include anyone who wants in. I'm talking about letting thousands join. Something where we can double check each member is a REAL CE. You know, a true scholars for truth. ;)

Sounds like a good idea, we just need to convince the best person out there for researching this topic into joining, I'm talking about Judy Wood of course. :)

[Brainache]

But they're government engineers, so everything they say is a lie. Remember, working for a government agency automatically makes you a robot, who has no problem helping cover up false flag terror operations by the US government.

Oh right. Sorry. I forgot. The engineers I knew at Uni were all busy building beer can pyramids and insulting us weak-brained arts students. Not really what I would have called robot material, until I met this guy:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5S6M_2LyROVMxM:http://www.toymania.com

[Vincent Vega]

With a name like that it would attract Truthers like moths to a flame. :hypnotize

Need somthing like "Civil Engineers for Non-9/11 beam weapon and/or thermite honesty"

[VespaGuy]

Why not something like Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18)?

[Brainache]

With a name like that it would attract Truthers like moths to a flame. :hypnotize

Need somthing like "Civil Engineers for Non-9/11 beam weapon and/or thermite honesty"

How about: Civil Engineers And Structural Engineers For Actual Truth? Or CEASE FAT for short.

[Dave Rogers]

Why not something like Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18)?

Damn, I was about to say that but you beat me to it. The problem with emulating Project Steve, though, is that it's only funny the first time.

Dave

[FactCheck]

How about: Civil Engineers And Structural Engineers For Actual Truth? Or CEASE FAT for short.

I was leaning toward "Scholastic Honesty In Theories" but that didn't work for obvious reasons.

[VespaGuy]

Damn, I was about to say that but you beat me to it. The problem with emulating Project Steve, though, is that it's only funny the first time.
Dave

I admit that Project Steve is humorous, but I think that it is also a great way to show how scientists aren't really 'split' about evolution.

I think that the same type of project with engineers in regards to 9/11 would have a similar effect. Maybe not as original, but still very powerful to those folks who may just be learning of these 9/11 conspiracies.

[rwguinn]

I was leaning toward "Scholastic Honesty In Theories" but that didn't work for obvious reasons.
Civil Engineers, Archetects,and Structural Engineers For Intellectually Realistic Environments?

[Augustine]

Truthfully I don't think there would be much interest. Do the so-called "Scholars" really need countering? Engineers as a group tend to be very practical and pragmatic, and I think many would tend to feel the way I do many times in dealing with "truthers": what is the point? Why argue with a brick wall? If Leslie Robertson, Dr. Charles Thornton, Dr. Gene Corley, Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Shankar Nair, and other engineering heavyweights don't convince you, how will my word? This would be the equivalent of running the medical advice of a world-class surgeon past your local GP. Unless the "truth movement" gains some traction, I doubt many engineers would feel the need to state the obvious - and if they did, it would likely be through ASCE or SEI.

[VespaGuy]

Truthfully I don't think there would be much interest. Do the so-called "Scholars" really need countering? Engineers as a group tend to be very practical and pragmatic, and I think many would tend to feel the way I do many times in dealing with "truthers": what is the point? Why argue with a brick wall? If Leslie Robertson, Dr. Charles Thornton, Dr. Gene Corley, Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Dr. Shankar Nair, and other engineering heavyweights don't convince you, how will my word? This would be the equivalent of running the medical advice of a world-class surgeon past your local GP. Unless the "truth movement" gains some traction, I doubt many engineers would feel the need to state the obvious - and if they did, it would likely be through ASCE or SEI.

That's an excellent point. In the case of evolution (and Project Steve) I think that it's more a matter of science and education. Evolution is an integral part of many different disciplines. I can't think of any reason why a biologist would not wish to categorically express their support of evolution in schools as opposed to pseudoscientific religious dogma.

9/11 is an entirely different matter. Engineers really don't have a dog in this fight. If a fringe group of folks (and let's face it, it's a fringe) want to believe in space weapons and thermite, why should they care? It doesn't affect their profession. We've seen the stalker-type behaviour from the truthers in the past when anyone vocally dismisses their fairytale. I don't think too many engineers would want to open themselves up to that type of abuse.

As you said, the "truth movement" would have to be more than a few nuts with banners and videos before many engineers would even feel obliged to comment. Hopefully (yup, I said hopefully), Loose Change 3 does get theatrical release. I honestly can't wait. If Dylan hopes to wake up the world, he can expect to also wake up the engineers and other experts who, until now, can't be bothered with his juvenile drivel.

Bring on LC3!

[Newtons Bit]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.

[Donal]

Yes, but isn't that why there are the jounals and periodicals? You guys aren't really keeping this information secret.

The CTists are simply ignoring what you are putting out.

[VespaGuy]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.


I stand corrected.

However, I would guess that most engineers aren't even aware of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11. Considering the small (albeit vocal) number of CTs, I just can't see why they would want to join a group that dismisses such ludicrous theories as explosives, mini-nukes, thermi/ate and space beams.

Would a reputable scientist join a "Scientists Supporting a Round Earth" group, just to counter a few wingnuts who may still beleive the world is flat? I doubt it.

[T.A.M.]

I would like to see such an organization come to be...good luck.

I would also like to see an antithesis to Scholars occur, so that I could be a part, as could other, non-engineer academics here.

TAM:)

[Augustine]

Actually VespaGuy, as part of the Engineering Code of Ethics, we are encouraged or even required to educate the population on engineering matters, especially when there's a large amount of wrong information floating about.

I think the closest you will get is under the guidelines for Canon 3 of the ASCE Code of Ethics (most Engineer Code of Ethics are very similar):
Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
The guidelines for Canon 1 could be a bit of a stretch:
Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities,

Does this mean that I have an ethical obligation to engage every ill-informed "truther" who claims that structural collapse was impossible and explosives must have been set despite the fact they have no feasible, rational, logistical plan or proof of said explosives?

Bit of a stretch, I think - especially since I can honestly state I have never met a truther in person, don't know any - and I think most engineers (and perhaps most people) are the same - zero personal exposure to this kind of insanity. Like I said, if the movement starts to gain traction, more engineers will speak out, but right now, I think the "movement" is little more than a speck on the radar screen.

[chipmunk stew]

I would think that many engineers would be happy to put their names and credentials in support of a statement about 9/11, especially once they hear the kinds of things the Truthiness Movement is claiming about the attacks, about the perpetrators, about the victims, about the rescue crews, about the investigators, and about professional engineers in general.

Remember how incensed you were when you first heard these claims?


Edit:

Borrowing from Project Steve, the statement could be as simple as:

"The NIST investigations into the three World Trade Center collapses were thorough, rigorous, and transparent. They encouraged public scrutiny and professional criticism during the investigations. Their conclusions and recommendations are a vital, well-supported explanation of the physical performance of the buildings after the 9/11 attacks, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that the collapse of all three buildings was initiated by a combination of impact damage and heat. Although there are legitimate debates about the specific chain of mechanisms involved in initiating the collapses, there is no serious scientific doubt that the buildings collapsed after the attacks without further human intervention and that the sole primary causes were airplane and debris impact damage and heat damage from conventional fuel sources. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for conspiracy pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'the controlled demolition theory,' to be introduced in support of historical revisionism in our nation's public discourse."

[T.A.M.]

The Academic Scholars Society for World Intellectual Proliferation, Education and Science.

I know, contrived, but heh...everyone else was making one up...lol

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

I think the closest you will get is under the guidelines for Canon 3 of the ASCE Code of Ethics (most Engineer Code of Ethics are very similar):

The guidelines for Canon 1 could be a bit of a stretch:


Does this mean that I have an ethical obligation to engage every ill-informed "truther" who claims that structural collapse was impossible and explosives must have been set despite the fact they have no feasible, rational, logistical plan or proof of said explosives?

Bit of a stretch, I think - especially since I can honestly state I have never met a truther in person, don't know any - and I think most engineers (and perhaps most people) are the same - zero personal exposure to this kind of insanity. Like I said, if the movement starts to gain traction, more engineers will speak out, but right now, I think the "movement" is little more than a speck on the radar screen.I don't think engagment is nessisary. All we would need is a sig saying they support a few facts.


The buildings could fall as fast as they did
Normal office fires collapsed the buildings
The NISTs hypothesis is backed by verifiable science
There is no evidence of explosives
<Add what ever you want here>


Or what chipmunk stew said. :)

I have many CE's on my site which are members of ASCE and not one has told me to take their name off. I think if you get a hundered or so, the CT's wont have the energy to harass them all.

I think the evolution debate is a great example. They were also just a few fringe nutballs scientists who push creation science. Will we have to wait until America spends millions on absurd investigations before CE's speak out?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Remember, working for a government agency automatically makes you a robot, who has no problem helping cover up false flag terror operations by the US government.

Unless you are a Pentagon police officer who watched the plane fly "North of Citgo", in which case your employment gives you double credibility points...

Cheers,
S

[peteweaver]

I've a better idea, I'm thinking of producing a 'documentary' called short change which absolutely takes the mickey out of loose change, by proposing that the Klingon Empire carried out September 11th by using modified k'tinga war cruisers that have external holographic projectors and are able to fire whilst cloaked.

Have an 'esteemed expert' character called Duane Uriah Griffin Phd (Professor of sports sciences Redneck University Alabama) talk about his book P'takh on America: How the Klingons carried out 9/11 (only $16.99 from Amazon). Make the film as hillarious as possible take the mickey out of the conspiracy profiteers, and put it on google video.

[Apollo20]

Chipmunk Stew:

When you say:

"There is no serious scientific doubt that the buildings collapsed after the attacks without further human intervention and that the sole primary causes were airplane and debris impact damage and heat damage from conventional fuel sources."

What "conventional fuel sources" do you have in mind?

Is PVC a conventional fuel?

And would that "heat damage" be with or without Blaze-shield types D, DC/F or type II applied to a truss assembly with a thickness of more or less than 1 inch?

[Dog Town]

And would that "heat damage" be with or without Blaze-shield types D, DC/F or type II applied to a truss assembly with a thickness of more or less than 1 inch?


Have you ever seen spray-on on trussing? Never looks good. Not to mention, the four floors that had major destruction. Got that Dr.?

[Apollo20]

By the way, the PANYNJ building codes do NOT require that passive thermal insulation be applied to the underside of floor decking, (because the decking is non-structural), but the electrical wiring codes do require such insulation!

Go figure!

However, NIST clearly state that:

"The technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material (in the Twin Towers) and its thickness are not known"

And:

"The building designers carried out no tests on the floor system used in the WTC to establish a fire endurance rating."

Don't you just LOVE Civil engineers!

[TruthSeeker1234]

By suggesting a group of structural and civil engineers, you are already framing the issue around your predetermined conclusion, i.e. that it was a building collapse.

Better would be to put together a diverse group of scientists, including structural engineers, but also including mechanical engineers, chemists like Apollo20, various physics sub-specialties like directed energy, nuclear, etc, and also explosives experts. They could then put pressure on the TV networks to release their high-quality footage, and NIST to release their evidence. That would be good for science and good for the truth.

You may like to pretend that most of the science community supports the official conspiracy theory, but in truth, most of them aren't talking. They certainly aren't answering quesitons.

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew:

When you say:

"There is no serious scientific doubt that the buildings collapsed after the attacks without further human intervention and that the sole primary causes were airplane and debris impact damage and heat damage from conventional fuel sources."

What "conventional fuel sources" do you have in mind?

Is PVC a conventional fuel?
Clearly the statement could and should be worded more precisely. My intent was to differentiate fuels that you'd expect to find in a passenger jet and a high-rise from fuels that you would not expect to find in the environment unless they were placed there intentionally as an accelerant.

And would that "heat damage" be with or without Blaze-shield types D, DC/F or type II applied to a truss assembly with a thickness of more or less than 1 inch?
That question would fall under "legitimate debates about the specific chain of mechanisms involved in initiating the collapses." The heat damage to the steel was one of the two primary causes of the collapses, agree?

[chipmunk stew]

By the way, the PANYNJ building codes do NOT require that passive thermal insulation be applied to the underside of floor decking, (because the decking is non-structural), but the electrical wiring codes do require such insulation!

Go figure!

However, NIST clearly state that:

"The technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material (in the Twin Towers) and its thickness are not known"

And:

"The building designers carried out no tests on the floor system used in the WTC to establish a fire endurance rating."

Don't you just LOVE Civil engineers!
Please take this to a different thread.

[CHF]

You may like to pretend that most of the science community supports the official conspiracy theory, but in truth, most of them aren't talking. They certainly aren't answering quesitons.

Well I guess you'd better get on that, huh?

You can start here: www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Call up some engineers and show em what they're missing.

[Newtons Bit]

Augestine, that is exactly what I was thinking of. I'm not trying to say that it means all engineers should join groups like the one being planned/joked about here. But rather that we shouldn't turn our noses to the sky and think that the discussion is completly beneath us like Vesper may have been implying.

[pomeroo]

By suggesting a group of structural and civil engineers, you are already framing the issue around your predetermined conclusion, i.e. that it was a building collapse.


Better would be to put together a diverse group of scientists, including structural engineers, but also including mechanical engineers, chemists like Apollo20, various physics sub-specialties like directed energy, nuclear, etc, and also explosives experts. They could then put pressure on the TV networks to release their high-quality footage, and NIST to release their evidence. That would be good for science and good for the truth.




Good for science; good for truth; devastating for you.




You may like to pretend that most of the science community supports the official conspiracy theory, but in truth, most of them aren't talking. They certainly aren't answering quesitons.



No serious scientists support the lunacy you peddle. And they are perfectly willing to talk when approached--as I've discovered.

Your conspiracy is imaginary and your "science" is bogus.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well I guess you'd better get on that, huh?

You can start here: www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html (http://www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html)

Call up some engineers and show em what they're missing.

I've been through this before, but if you think there are any scientists who have signed off on the OCT, who are willing to speak with me, on the record, please feel free to let me know who they are.

[T.A.M.]

By suggesting a group of structural and civil engineers, you are already framing the issue around your predetermined conclusion, i.e. that it was a building collapse.

Better would be to put together a diverse group of scientists, including structural engineers, but also including mechanical engineers, chemists like Apollo20, various physics sub-specialties like directed energy, nuclear, etc, and also explosives experts. They could then put pressure on the TV networks to release their high-quality footage, and NIST to release their evidence. That would be good for science and good for the truth.

You may like to pretend that most of the science community supports the official conspiracy theory, but in truth, most of them aren't talking. They certainly aren't answering quesitons.

For all the rational, intelligent Fence sitters and undecideds, Truthseeker1234 is a representative of the 9/11 truth movement. He believes that the buildings likely didn't collapse, but were instantaneously "Pulverized" by a "High Energy Beam Weapon" that sits in outerspace, powered from some source on earth.

Remember this when you listen to his "arguments"

Apollo20:

NIST has said that the REMOVAL of the SFRM was KEY to the collapse initiation. They feel it would not have occured, had a significant portion of it not been removed. The thickness, and type of SFRM does not matter from this perspective, as regardless of the thickness and type, it had to have been removed for the metal to heat up enough to cause the systems in question to fail. Now if you are claiming this info has relivence, beyond this, please state for us in what way you feel the type and thickness is important.

I heard your interview with Fetzer, and I know you have had run ins with Engineers, but do you think that influences your view of NIST and those who worked on the reports?

Thanks.

TAM:)

[LashL]

By suggesting a group of structural and civil engineers, you are already framing the issue around your predetermined conclusion, i.e. that it was a building collapse.

Earth to Ace. The buildlings did, in fact, collapse.

While you may wish to argue about the means and methods of collapse, you cannot possibly - with a straight face - say that they did not collapse.

Honestly, sometimes I have to simply shake my head in wonderment at the extremes to which tinhatters will go in trying to redefine reality.

[Gravy]

By the way, the PANYNJ building codes do NOT require that passive thermal insulation be applied to the underside of floor decking, (because the decking is non-structural),but the electrical wiring codes do require such insulation!What did the current NYC codes require? The PA had pledged to meet or exceed the NYC codes, which were under revision during the tower construction. The PA had required that the building design be readily upgradeable to meet the revisions, which were published in 1968.


I'm curious as to why you posted your response in this thread.

[FactCheck]

I have literally HUNDERDS of photos of GZ and I'm hard pressed to find one STICK of column with more than a paper thin patchwork of fireproofing. Even the columns that never fell. The ones still standing in the foot print where they were before the collapse! I'm inclined to believe the people who used to replace the fireproofing regularly when they said even elevator cables produced enough vibration to dislodge the fireproofing.

This would be interesting on another thread.

Why do I get the feeling that when people of different scientific fields of study get together it's like a scene out of 2001 a space odyssey.

http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/Films/2001-Alcott3.jpg

We're all still fighting over the water hole.

[rwguinn]

For all the rational, intelligent Fence sitters and undecideds, Truthseeker1234 is a representative of the 9/11 truth movement. He believes that the buildings likely didn't collapse, but were instantaneously "Pulverized" by a "High Energy Beam Weapon" that sits in outerspace, powered from some source on earth.

Remember this when you listen to his "arguments"

Apollo20:

NIST has said that the REMOVAL of the SFRM was KEY to the collapse initiation. They feel it would not have occured, had a significant portion of it not been removed. The thickness, and type of SFRM does not matter from this perspective, as regardless of the thickness and type, it had to have been removed for the metal to heat up enough to cause the systems in question to fail. Now if you are claiming this info has relivence, beyond this, please state for us in what way you feel the type and thickness is important.

I heard your interview with Fetzer, and I know you have had run ins with Engineers, but do you think that influences your view of NIST and those who worked on the reports?

Thanks.

TAM:)
since the fireproofing was little more than insulation (Steel normally is fire-proof at reasonable temperatures), the removal in any area was critical to the weakening of the steel. At temperatures in excess of 700 degrees C, steel reaches the plastic region at pretty low loading, and once it begins bending, the load path changes dramatically. If the area the load transfers to is also hot, things progress rapidly--and steel is a pretty good heat conductor, so applying a lot of heat--say, by a large fire initiated by fuel that also helped strip off the fire protectant (Which is pretty much what you would ecpect-fires in the area where the fuel was), the situation become critical rapidly.

And as for the apparent animosity toward engineers--
maybe that's why he won't answer questions from us engineers? Maybe we're too hidebound to understand what he's on about?

BTW--
It was the Chemistry and combustion problems that gave me the additional credits I needed to pass the PE exam. So I do know a little about it.

[rwguinn]

Chipmunk Stew:

When you say:

"There is no serious scientific doubt that the buildings collapsed after the attacks without further human intervention and that the sole primary causes were airplane and debris impact damage and heat damage from conventional fuel sources."

What "conventional fuel sources" do you have in mind?

Is PVC a conventional fuel?

And would that "heat damage" be with or without Blaze-shield types D, DC/F or type II applied to a truss assembly with a thickness of more or less than 1 inch?

why so pedantic? If PCV is normally present in an office space, in the form of piping, furniture, tools, whatever, obviously it is a conventional fuel for that space.
If the Blaze shield has been removed by kinetic energy, of wasn't actuall applied for one reason or another, the point is moot, is it not?

[VespaGuy]

But rather that we shouldn't turn our noses to the sky and think that the discussion is completly beneath us like Vesper may have been implying.

I hope my comments were not taken the wrong way. I personally would love to see a group of engineering professionals who stand behind a statement such as the one Chipmunk created. I did not mean to convey the image of ivory tower engineers who turn up their noses at this debate.

My opinion (which isn't worth anything) is that engineers who aren't aware of the 'truth movement' may simply see it for exactly what it is - absolute balderdash, with no real need for comment. Right now, the "truth movement" is limited to kooks at Ground Zero, internet videos, and back-shirts with signs. I think that everything that the 'truthers' do is despicable (harassment, accusations, etc), but I think that sometimes we may overestimate the real impact these folks currently have. Take a look around. Talk to friends, coworkers and other folks. How many have even heard of these conspiracies? How many that have heard of them, dismiss them for what they are? How many have heard of Fetzer, Jones, or Avery? My limited experience shows that CTs are a very small minority - either unheard of, or seen as the nuts they are.

I cannot stress enough that I am not making light of anything these truthers do. I find their methods, actions, and accusations deplorable. I've been involved in my own way since Delphi Ote's first thread. I read the forum daily, and leave the debunking to the more knowledgable and try to limit my own posts (many folks here are able to express thoughts similar to mine with much more elegance). I am only saying that beyond the keyboard, the majority of the population aren't even aware of the CT existance.

In my opinion, LC3 will have the opposite effect that Dylan intends. Bringing LC nonsense to the masses will raise the ire of the very same folks who Dylan has been avoiding. I think that engineers and other professionals who aren't aware of the CTs will be very eager to call it out if it ever hits the mainstream.

If a organizing a group of engineering experts is a serious endeavor, I support it 100%. I am honestly interested in how it turns out.

Just my two cents.

[T.A.M.]

In my opinion, LC3 will have the opposite effect that Dylan intends. Bringing LC nonsense to the masses will raise the ire of the very same folks who Dylan has been avoiding. I think that engineers and other professionals who aren't aware of the CTs will be very eager to call it out if it ever hits the mainstream.


Out of the very shadows that has allowed his deceitful mist to crawl so far and wide, and into the light of the real academic world...I can't wait.

TAM:)

[chippy]

If you call it "Engineers for 9/11 Honesty", I would join. I'm not a civil engineer, but I know a lot of the same stuff they know, especially when it comes to stress analysis in steel beams and what not. I might add that MEs have better knowledge in heat transfer than CEs.

I'd also like to add that we held an ASME (of which I am co-president) vs. ASCE ultimate frisbee game last week, and despite the fact that we had 7 players and they had 30, we beat them. Clearly we are the superior engineers.

But seriously, I would just say "engineers" rather than "civil engineers".

[rwguinn]

If you call it "Engineers for 9/11 Honesty", I would join. I'm not a civil engineer, but I know a lot of the same stuff they know, especially when it comes to stress analysis in steel beams and what not. I might add that MEs have better knowledge in heat transfer than CEs.

I'd also like to add that we held an ASME (of which I am co-president) vs. ASCE ultimate frisbee game last week, and despite the fact that we had 7 players and they had 30, we beat them. Clearly we are the superior engineers.

But seriously, I would just say "engineers" rather than "civil engineers".

I'll second that. The events of 9-11-2001 were all dynamic events, which ME's do for a living--or some of us do. There are HVAC and Thermo guys in ME who don't do stress. Just like there are CE's who specialize in sanitation, soils, and other aspects of the field other than stress and statics.
I am an ME, working in stress and loads analysis.
Just don't ask me to do design work. I'll analyze yours, and point out probable failure points, and help you make good decisions, but I am not a designer.

[CHF]

I've been through this before, but if you think there are any scientists who have signed off on the OCT, who are willing to speak with me, on the record, please feel free to let me know who they are.

No I'm afraid I don't know of any who are willing to sit down with a no-plane/laser beamer.

Few people on earth would be.

If you really want to talk to experts you'll go out and find some. Yet instead you elect to sit here and complain.

Very telling.

[FactCheck]

I hope my comments were not taken the wrong way. I personally would love to see a group of engineering professionals who stand behind a statement such as the one Chipmunk created. I did not mean to convey the image of ivory tower engineers who turn up their noses at this debate.

My opinion (which isn't worth anything) is that engineers who aren't aware of the 'truth movement' may simply see it for exactly what it is - absolute balderdash, with no real need for comment. Right now, the "truth movement" is limited to kooks at Ground Zero, internet videos, and back-shirts with signs. I think that everything that the 'truthers' do is despicable (harassment, accusations, etc), but I think that sometimes we may overestimate the real impact these folks currently have. Take a look around. Talk to friends, coworkers and other folks. How many have even heard of these conspiracies? How many that have heard of them, dismiss them for what they are? How many have heard of Fetzer, Jones, or Avery? My limited experience shows that CTs are a very small minority - either unheard of, or seen as the nuts they are.

I cannot stress enough that I am not making light of anything these truthers do. I find their methods, actions, and accusations deplorable. I've been involved in my own way since Delphi Ote's first thread. I read the forum daily, and leave the debunking to the more knowledgable and try to limit my own posts (many folks here are able to express thoughts similar to mine with much more elegance). I am only saying that beyond the keyboard, the majority of the population aren't even aware of the CT existance.

In my opinion, LC3 will have the opposite effect that Dylan intends. Bringing LC nonsense to the masses will raise the ire of the very same folks who Dylan has been avoiding. I think that engineers and other professionals who aren't aware of the CTs will be very eager to call it out if it ever hits the mainstream.

If a organizing a group of engineering experts is a serious endeavor, I support it 100%. I am honestly interested in how it turns out.

Just my two cents.While I don't think there are a large amount of people who know the details, (Even some of the hardcore CT's don't know the details of their arguments as Gravy illustrated in his GZ video.) There is evidence many people believe the government had something to do with 9/11 though they can't put their finger on it. I believe that is the first effect they are having. When I say "Many", I mean enough to make the media take notice. Enough to spread the misinformation until people actually believe it. If you say something long enough people believe it. I think this is their stratigy to sell books, get web site traffic and other things to make money off dead people.

If anyone is interested in signing on to something like this, PM me and we can move this forward.

Strike the word "Civil" from the name.

[Augustine]

Augestine, that is exactly what I was thinking of. I'm not trying to say that it means all engineers should join groups like the one being planned/joked about here. But rather that we shouldn't turn our noses to the sky and think that the discussion is completly beneath us like Vesper may have been implying.

I don't know that the discussion is necessarily beneath us, but the view among many engineers may be what is the point in trying to reason with crazy people, and is it worse to respond to them as if their lunatic misconceptions are reasonable? (Plus, from experience, I think we have all seen how the goalposts move - without, however, any concessions, redactions, admissions of error, or acknowledgement that any part of the "Official Story" is TRUE. There is no victory, only the repeated rebuttals of ignorance that fall on deaf and delusional ears.)

This post, from our short-lived chemical engineer-turned-lawyer proposing why engineers would remain silent, is mind-boggling in its inanity:

This is based on false logic. The fact that a large number of engineers haven’t been openly critical of the official story is not evidence that they all in fact support the official story. ... Many structural engineers also rely on the government for building approvals, etc. It would be very bad for business to go around accusing the government of being in on 9/11 because it would be extremely likely that the next big building project that came in would not be approved based on such criticism alone.

This is prima facie evidence that we are dealing with willfully ignorant people immune to reason. You either have to believe that the federal government is somehow involved in the building permitting process (:jaw-dropp ) or you believe that the NWO conspiracy is so vast it reaches down into the local city or county permitting/building plans office (:jaw-dropp ). Fer cryin' out loud, we are still explaining that UL does not certify structural steel and a fire-rated floor assembly is not a full-scale mock-up of a particular building floor assembly. Who on the other side is listening?

So, while I would have no problem putting my name (and license) behind a statement supporting the NIST Report and findings, I'm not sure how much good it would do, or how many of my colleagues would feel it was worthwhile.

[rwguinn]

I don't know that the discussion is necessarily beneath us, but the view among many engineers may be what is the point in trying to reason with crazy people, and is it worse to respond to them as if their lunatic misconceptions are reasonable? (Plus, from experience, I think we have all seen how the goalposts move - without, however, any concessions, redactions, admissions of error, or acknowledgement that any part of the "Official Story" is TRUE. There is no victory, only the repeated rebuttals of ignorance that fall on deaf and delusional ears.)

This post, from our short-lived chemical engineer-turned-lawyer proposing why engineers would remain silent, is mind-boggling in its inanity:

This is prima facie evidence that we are dealing with willfully ignorant people immune to reason. You either have to believe that the federal government is somehow involved in the building permitting process (:jaw-dropp ) or you believe that the NWO conspiracy is so vast it reaches down into the local city or county permitting/building plans office (:jaw-dropp ). Fer cryin' out loud, we are still explaining that UL does not certify structural steel and a fire-rated floor assembly is not a full-scale mock-up of a particular building floor assembly. Who on the other side is listening?

So, while I would have no problem putting my name (and license) behind a statement supporting the NIST Report and findings, I'm not sure how much good it would do, or how many of my colleagues would feel it was worthwhile.

Worse than that, we are all familiar with the way they cherry pick, quote out-of-context, and twist meanings.
When an angineer says things, he is often, to the layman, vague. We don't say "The crash eliminated 30% of the insulation...", but something more like "It is likely that the impact scrubbed off up to 30% of the insulation...", which comes out,in Troofer lingo "engineers have no idea..."
And frankly, once something hits the internet, it is absolutely true--to one or more people out there.

Face it--If you uttered the phrase "I'd like to kill this project, because it keeps this part of town in an impoverished situation, and besides, it will kill baby squirrels",
somebody will requote you as "I'd like to kill impoverished babies", and somebody in your hometown, or from your past, would say "I knew there was a good reason for believing he is an ***hole"

So, we don't interview--especially over the phone where there is no record at all--with troofers..

[FactCheck]

I think I may have misscommunicated the idea.

There will be no quotes from any engineer. It is only to sign onto what engineers agree to. That the evidence points to fires and not explosives which destroyed the buildings. And that the NIST report, while having parts which may be in dispute is correct in the main points.

Impact damage
Dislodged Fireproofing
Sagging floors
weakening of the columns
Design of the buildings
ETC, ETC..

all contributed to the collapse

I would even add that there is evidence to suggest explosives WEREN'T used because of the gradual bowing of the perimeter columns. Explosives can't do that.

They only have to sign onto what 99.9% of engineers agree on. No quoting to mine. :)

[Apollo20]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. Unfortunately for NIST the towers were built during code changes that resulted in a moving target for the designers (and NIST!). Some things that were ok at the start of construction were eventually not ok. But fear not! Engineers are masters of finding ways to meet applicable codes. I know, I watched how they operate for 25 years.....

A good example is the way my nuclear engineering colleagues came up with an "annulus gas hypothesis" to explain embrittlement of zirconium pressure tubes to the nuclear regulators. Just like the dislodged insulation hypothesis, the annulus gas hypothesis sort-of explained the observations but was absolutely 100 % wrong. Same holds true for the story concocted to explain (away) the Flixborough disaster. In that particular case the engineers misled the Court of Inquiry with a nice story that wasn't true.

This "engineering" approach is popular with the powers that be, bacause it means that the owners and operators of industry and big business are let off the hook 9 times out of 10. Meanwhile, the truth is buried...

NIST may indeed have the right answer - planes hit the towers, towers fell down - but the wrong reason (dislodged fireproofing).

So, all you engineers out there can congratulate NIST on a job well done, but as a scientist, I will keep on looking......

[Disbelief]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weaken sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. Unfortunately for NIST the towers were built during code changes that resulted in a moving target for the designers (and NIST!). Some things that were ok at the start of construction were eventually not ok.
But fear not! Engineers are masters of finding ways to meet applicable codes. I know, I watched how they operate for 25 years.....

A good example is the way my nuclear engineering colleagues came up with an "annulus gas hypothesis" to explain embrittlement of its zirconium pressure tubes to the nuclear regulators. Just like the dislodged insulation hypothesis, the annulus gas hypothesis sort-of explained the observations but was absolutely 100 % wrong. Same holds true for the story concocted to explain (away) the Flixborough disaster. In that particular case the engineers misled the Court of Inquiry with a nice story that wasn't true.

This "engineering" approach is popular with the powers that be, bacause it means that the owners and operators of industry and big business are let off the hook 9 times out of 10. Meanwhile, the truth is buried...

NIST may indeed have the right answer - planes hit the towers, towers fell down - but the wrong reason (dislodged fireproofing).

So, all you engineers out there can congratulate NIST on a job well done, but as a scientist, I will keep on looking......

May I ask how the fireproofing could not have been dislodged? There is sufficient data from airplane crash investigations to understand plenty of the forces at work. Therefore, there would be some backing from other studies to show how the fireproofing was dislodged.

Don't let a bad experience you had with engineers sour you to a whole group of individuals. Generalizations are often wrong.

[rwguinn]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weaken sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

So you, as a "scientist" have zero confiddence that a 1000 ton aircraft, impacting a building at 500 miles per hour (733 ft/sec) , would dislodge a spray-on insulation, which insulation was shown to be easily removed by small (approximately .0005 lb) pellets at 1000fps?
Ooooooo-kay.

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. Unfortunately for NIST the towers were built during code changes that resulted in a moving target for the designers (and NIST!). Some things that were ok at the start of construction were eventually not ok.
But fear not! Engineers are masters of finding ways to meet applicable codes. I know, I watched how they operate for 25 years.....
Personal attacks are not appreciated, nor do they add anything to your already dubious credibility

A good example is the way my nuclear engineering colleagues came up with an "annulus gas hypothesis" to explain embrittlement of its zirconium pressure tubes to the nuclear regulators. Just like the dislodged insulation hypothesis, the annulus gas hypothesis sort-of explained the observations but was absolutely 100 % wrong. Same holds true for the story concocted to explain (away) the Flixborough disaster. In that particular case the engineers misled the Court of Inquiry with a nice story that wasn't true.

This "engineering" approach is popular with the powers that be, bacause it means that the owners and operators of industry and big business are let off the hook 9 times out of 10. Meanwhile, the truth is buried...

NIST may indeed have the right answer - planes hit the towers, towers fell down - but the wrong reason (dislodged fireproofing).

So, all you engineers out there can congratulate NIST on a job well done, but as a scientist, I will keep on looking......
I sincerely doubt your science. Your motives are coloring your investigation in what to me is a more dishonest and dispicable method than that of the truthers hatred for GW Bush colors theirs.
They at least have the shelter of ignorance of the scientific method. You, sir, do not.

[Apollo20]

I am sure SOME fireproofing was dislodged!

(So the aircraft weighed 1000 tons..... really?)

Please show me where NIST calculates how much was dislodged and where it was dislodged in relation to the fires.

And by the way, it wasn't ONE bad experience, it was 25-years worth.

[FactCheck]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. Unfortunately for NIST the towers were built during code changes that resulted in a moving target for the designers (and NIST!). Some things that were ok at the start of construction were eventually not ok. But fear not! Engineers are masters of finding ways to meet applicable codes. I know, I watched how they operate for 25 years.....

A good example is the way my nuclear engineering colleagues came up with an "annulus gas hypothesis" to explain embrittlement of zirconium pressure tubes to the nuclear regulators. Just like the dislodged insulation hypothesis, the annulus gas hypothesis sort-of explained the observations but was absolutely 100 % wrong. Same holds true for the story concocted to explain (away) the Flixborough disaster. In that particular case the engineers misled the Court of Inquiry with a nice story that wasn't true.

This "engineering" approach is popular with the powers that be, bacause it means that the owners and operators of industry and big business are let off the hook 9 times out of 10. Meanwhile, the truth is buried...

NIST may indeed have the right answer - planes hit the towers, towers fell down - but the wrong reason (dislodged fireproofing).

So, all you engineers out there can congratulate NIST on a job well done, but as a scientist, I will keep on looking......So the photos of the trusses and columns in the impact level without fire proofing mean nothing? The photos of the columns all over GZ without fire proofing mean nothing?

This is a place where I must use common sense. If the collapse ripped the fireproofing off so cleanly, then the airline impact should have done the same.
I would even disagree with the NIST if they tried to say nothing happened to the fire proofing.

Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse

By JAMES GLANZ with MICHAEL MOSS

Excerpts:

"Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly. But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."

In an interview, Mr. Morse said the problems were far more widespread than that, probably because the fireproofing had been applied improperly to rusty steel. Mr. Morse, who at the time of his inspections was a consultant to the manufacturer of the fireproofing, said his examinations had never reached above the 78th floor in either tower, but that the nature and dimensions of the problem convinced him the failings of the fireproofing would be found on virtually all parts of the buildings. Investigators think the planes struck around the 90th to 94th floors of the north tower and the 78th to 84th floors of the south tower.

Mr. Morse said his inspections on several floors also found problems with the fireproofing of the lightweight, weblike trusses that held up the floors. He said his inspections, which began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000, showed stretches of the tubelike structural steel supporting the trusses without any fireproofing, and other areas of extremely thin fireproofing.

Port Authority officials dismissed those allegations, saying that they doubted the photographs were representative of the entire building and that fireproofing on the trusses was regularly replaced and upgraded whenever there was a major renovation or a change of tenants."

http://www.mzaconsulting.com/Faulty%20Fireproofing_WTC.pdf

[rwguinn]

I am sure SOME fireproofing was dislodged!
Apollo20The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Backtracking? by a pedant?

(So the aircraft weighed 1000 tons..... really?)forgive the extra zero--musta been the engineer in me... you know how we are..

Please show me where NIST calculates how much was dislodged and where it was dislodged in relation to the fires.

And by the way, it wasn't ONE bad experience, it was 25-years worth.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

[FactCheck]

"We will also capture the as-built fireproofing condition and develop a probable extreme fire scenario and analyze it," says Shyam Sunder, lead WTC investigator for Gaithersburg, Md.-based NIST.

The study will account for zones where sprayed-on fireproofing on the structural steel frame was either missing, not specified in the original design or knocked off by the planes or flying debris. For example, there was no fireproofing specified for the tops of the dampers where the floor trusses met the perimeter structural tube, says Sunder. "Evidence suggests" that in a 3-ft region on floor trusses abutting perimeter columns, fireproofing may have been less than the minimum specified value, he says.

The second major aspect of the WTC fire study is to analyze the effect of the airplane impact damage to the structure "in an effort to estimate the region over which the fireproofing was dislodged on columns and floors," says Sunder.

There is some controversy over whether testing the fireproofing and reconstructing the exact collapse sequence make any difference. "Fireproofing is a red-herring issue because with any structural system, whether fireproofing was on floor trusses or wide-flange members or whether it was the concrete cover on concrete members, it would have been destroyed by the impact of the aircraft," said structural engineer Jon D. Magnusson in a presentation, Learning from Structures Subjected to Loads Extremely beyond Design, at a Dec. 4-5 Steel Building Symposium on Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance in New York City. It was sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction and the Steel Institute of New York.

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/031215.asp

[FactCheck]

Start from 6.2.4

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Apollo, I can PM you a link with lots of GZ photos. Maybe you can spot the fire proofing...

[rwguinn]

"Snip>>>
There is some controversy over whether testing the fireproofing and reconstructing the exact collapse sequence make any difference. "Fireproofing is a red-herring issue because with any structural system, whether fireproofing was on floor trusses or wide-flange members or whether it was the concrete cover on concrete members, it would have been destroyed by the impact of the aircraft," said structural engineer Jon D. Magnusson in a presentation, Learning from Structures Subjected to Loads Extremely beyond Design, at a Dec. 4-5 Steel Building Symposium on Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance in New York City. It was sponsored by the American Institute of Steel Construction and the Steel Institute of New York.

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/031215.asp

Yeah, but engineers aren't scientists--we're just anxious to make sure we have CYA insurance

[FactCheck]

Not being a scientist I feel qualified to say "Can we all just get along?"

[CHF]

Apollo20,

why in your opinion did we observe the outer structure being pulled inward prior to collapse? What was doing that?

[chipmunk stew]

And by the way, it wasn't ONE bad experience, it was 25-years worth.
Who was the only person that was involved in every one of those 25-years' worth of bad experiences?

Have you ever considered that your hypothesis ("all engineers suck") might be wrong? You might want to try a different hypothesis and see how it fits the data.


Post edited to remove uncivil remarks which amount to personal attacks under the current stricter interpretation of the membership agreement. Attack the argument, not the person.

[Apollo20]

Contrast this quote given above by engineer number 1: "Fireproofing is a red-herring."

With this quote by engineer number 2, from the NIST Report:

"Fireproofing thickness and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact is identified as the single most important parameter.... "

So what is it?

Important?

Or a red herring?

But is is not part of the engineering code of ethics not to misinform the public?

[Apollo20]

Oh yes, and about those NIST fire simulations.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Uncertainty in the SFRM thickness was such that the uncertainty in the steel temperature was 20 % from this alone.

Now add the uncertainty from the thermo-physical properties of the materials in a truss assembly from things like the moisture content of the Blaze-shield...

Then add the uncertainty in the steel temperature due to the uncertainty in the heat release rate of 20 %...

Then look at Tables 12-9 and 12-10 and see variations of as much as 400 deg C in the predicted temperatures of a particular WTC 1 floor at a particular time.

Then see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F for an explanation of the difference between case A and case B and tell me if this is good science, or just self-fullfilling....

[T.A.M.]

Greening, do you find anything correct or positive about the NIST report, or was it just a sham in your opinion...as a scientist?

Witnesses who worked in the WTCs said it took next to nothing in terms of vibration or trauma to dislodge the fireproofing. My god man it was spray on. A huge jet airliner came through 6-8 floors of the building. Spraying jet fuel blasted through at 500mph, and all you can say is it isnt proven...well ok. I guess you are right. So now what. So now NISTs entire premise for the falling of the towers is out in your opinion...so do better already.

Your vitriol is worsening as you continue here. Despite the legitimacy of your work so far, you are quickly losing respect here...somehow I doubt you care though, which is likely why your posting has such contempt within it.

TAM

[WildCat]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven.
Neither is Evolution. And you're sounding more and more like a creationist, using the same style of arguments.

Good luck with your hypothesis that some unique chemical reaction never seen before 9/11 or since in a fire was the cause of the collapse.

[WildCat]

Have you ever considered that your hypothesis ("all engineers suck") might be wrong? You might want to try a different hypothesis and see how it fits the data.
Judging from his posting here, I'm going to guess the latter.

[Apollo20]

Thanks for the kind words... Tam.... Chipmunk... RWGUINN... WILDCAT...

I know the truth about NIST can hurt!

CHF: I guess the bowing would be impact > fire > thermal penetration > truss failure.

Now all we have to do is tweak our model....

[Gravy]

Contrast this quote given above by engineer number 1: "Fireproofing is a red-herring."

With this quote by engineer number 2, from the NIST Report:

"Fireproofing thickness and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact is identified as the single most important parameter.... "

So what is it?

Important?

Or a red herring?

But is is not part of the engineering code of ethics not to misinform the public?
You seem – repeatedly – to be going out of your way to misinterpret what engineers say and to feign confusion over simple semantic differences. In this quote is Jon Magnusson saying that the insulation is unimportant?

because with any structural system, whether fireproofing was on floor trusses or wide-flange members or whether it was the concrete cover on concrete members, it would have been destroyed by the impact of the aircraft,"

[WildCat]

I know the truth about NIST can hurt!
You wouldn't be squealing so if it didn't.

[Gravy]

Oh yes, and about those NIST fire simulations.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Uncertainty in the SFRM thickness was such that the uncertainty in the steel temperature was 20 % from this alone.

Now add the uncertainty from the thermo-physical properties of the materials in a truss assembly from things like the moisture content of the Blaze-shield...

Then add the uncertainty in the steel temperature due to the uncertainty in the heat release rate of 20 %...

Then look at Tables 12-9 and 12-10 and see variations of as much as 400 deg C in the predicted temperatures of a particular WTC 1 floor at a particular time.

Then see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F for an explanation of the difference between case A and case B and tell me if this is good science, or just self-fullfilling....
And because of that uncertainty they used their most conservative estimates of SFRM loss, where the model indicated direct impact only. If you think their model was grossly inaccurate, how would you have done things differently?

[FactCheck]

You seem – repeatedly – to be going out of your way to misinterpret what engineers say and to feign confusion over simple semantic differences. In this quote is Jon Magnusson saying that the insulation is unimportant?I have to admit, I also found that to be overt quote mining. I KNOW he knows Jon Magnusson was talking about how it's common knowledge this fireproofing couldn't last with that kind of an impact. In that sense the fireproofing IS a red-herring.

Does the NIST have to go back in time and teleport into the impact area to "PROVE" the fireproofing [HERE] was more than [THERE]. How can that be proven the way you mean it? One can safely CONCLUDE the fireproofing came off using the photo and video evidence together with evidence of how poorly it adheres to the steel. No million dollar investigation necessary. That was done by the NIST and I verified it independently by looking at photos of GZ. The same photos I PM'd you with Apollo.

As I said, the proof he and the NIST are right are the columns with only a thin patchwork of fire proofing on ground zero. But even without this independent verification, the NIST proved it with video and photographic evidence. Unlike Jones thermite, you don't have to guess at what you are seeing. You just don't see fireproofing in the impact hole. No controlled experiment will change that. If they came back and said the fireproofing wasn't removed after impact, the photos say otherwise.

Should the ceiling tile system be tested to see if it was inplace too???

I don't get it... A head game? Never mind, I don't have PROOF of that...

[Unfit4Command]

The trusses aren't very visible in many photo's of the Towers after the impacts, but the few I've seen show missing fire proofing.

Like this one:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/trussproof.jpg

And this one which shows the perimeter columns pretty clearly:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/6-3_wtc1-impact-hole-woman-waving.jpg

Also, fire proofing was dislodged from the Banker's Trust Building because of the collapse of the South Tower:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/879045b674075d6ad-1.jpg

You can also see missing fireproofing on this beam from WTC 5:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/bucklingbarinWTC5-1.jpg

Did the impact of the falling steel have more of an effect than the airliner flying at 400+ MPH? There's almost much no doubt that SOME fireproofing was dislodged, how much was removed/damaged will remain a mystery forever.

[rwguinn]

Many non-engineers (and an unfortunately large number of engineers), which includes people involved in the "pure" sciences as well as people with no science baground at all, are largely uninformed as to what engineers actually do, and why the do them the way they do.
Codes are developed by Archetectural engineers, Mechanical engineers, Chemical engineers, Civil Engineers, and other engineering groups to ensure that things will be made to certain minimum standards. Rather than spend a lot of money, time, and manpower to reinvent the wheel with every new design, whether it be a building, a roadway, a bridge, an Airconditioning system, boiler, power plant, etc., we go to the codes, which were developed by engineers, using certain minimum standards, materials, and allowables loading of all types. Need a pressure vessel? Go look up the appropriate ASME code--it will give you allowable materials, thicknesses, diameters, size and locations of rupture disks--everything you need, and you don't have to find the stresses in each individual nut, bolt, rivet, and weld--a real time saver. ASChE, ASCE, SAE (everyone has heard of SAE!) have similar codes and standards--which guarantee uniformity and safety for each specialty.
There are large numbers of engineers who spend their entire careers "designing to code". Some call them "Cook-book" engineers, but there is still a lot of work that goes into it. Designing to code usually give a large safety factor for the design.
Some engineers do research and development. Their job is to come up with new materials, processes,products, and uses.
Some engineers develop and refine the various codes, through research, testing, and investigation of events such as airplane crashes, automobile crashes, bridge and building collapses, and man-made disasters such as the 9-11 situation.
Most engineers can design to code. Often, however, one must go outside the code simply because it doesn't fit. Sometimes the code is over-designed for the application. This means that a certain amount of analysis, experience, and expertise is required--a specialist. A PE (Professional Engineer) license, like code, is meant to guarantee a certain minimum capability, expertise, and experience.
Unlike the pure scientist, an engineer's stamp of approval is all too often an arrow pointed at the guy to sue. A chemical research scientist doesn't get sued when a reaction he said wouldn't happen actually does happen because someone skimped and bought contaminated produncts, or wbecause of carelessness on the part of whomever actually uses the data. An engineer gets sued because a vending machine falls on a guy who was trying to break into it. An astronomer doesn't get sued when the comet he predicted would be naked-eye visible turned out to be a bust. An engineer gets sued because someone thought that automobile tires were a zero-maintenence item.
So, yes, there is a lot of CYA that happens in engineering. Some engineers make a career of it. But most of us do the best we can, and turn out computer systems, automobiles, aircraft, mp3 players, and any number of health and lifestyle abeting machines to make life a little safer, more comfortable, and longer.
The fact that apollo20 has dealt with only the CYA-ers is his misfortune. To condemn an entire field because of his perception of incompetence is his loss. After all, he dwells in a house or other building, drives an automobile, flies in aircraft, and probably has a refrigerator, stove, washer, dryer, microwave oven, and definitely uses a computer and probably a calculator.
You're welcome.

[Apollo20]

That fig 6.9 of damage to WTC 1 is most interesting. Judging by its color, I am not sure that the section of flooring labelled as No. 1 does indeed show that the thermal insulation has been removed. And if that is the underside of a floor pan facing out there was no requirement to spray insulation there anyway.....

But let's not dwell on these issues. The fact is the trusses labelled No. 1 and 2 have been disconnected from the structure! Who cares if they have thermal protection or not! We need to worry about floor trusses that were still connected after the aircraft impacts and still formed part of the support structure. We are talking about how these floor trusses would heat up.

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to have vanished on the remaining, more or less intact trusses does not make it true.

[WildCat]

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to have vanished on the remaining, more or less intact trusses does not make it true.
Do you think you're doing well here Frank? Just wondering...

[FactCheck]

That fig 6.9 of damage to WTC 1 is most interesting. Judging by its color, I am not sure that the section of flooring labelled as No. 1 does indeed show that the thermal insulation has been removed. And if that is the underside of a floor pan facing out there was no requirement to spray insulation there anyway.....

But let's not dwell on these issues. The fact is the trusses labelled No. 1 and 2 have been disconnected from the structure! Who cares if they have thermal protection or not! We need to worry about floor trusses that were still connected after the aircraft impacts and still formed part of the support structure. We are talking about how these floor trusses would heat up.

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to have vanished on the remaining, more or less intact trusses does not make it true.On MY monitor, I see the arrows pointing to trusses and NOT floor pans.

On MY monitor I see the trusses a shade red as opposed to the insulation pointed to which is white on the perimeter. This strongly suggests to me I am looking at the rust color of iron/steel.

Could it be your monitor which gives you the impression?

When I get home I'll blow up the photo to show you.

Did you see the GZ photos apollo?

[Newtons Bit]

Apollo20:

We can't directly see what level of damage or even what thickness of fireprotection the floor joists had on them because the building collapsed. However, it is foolish to automatically assume that since we can't see that fireprotection, it is automatically perfect. One needs to look for other evidence that shows the fireprotection was either damaged, or insufficient. The simpliest way to see that is if the floor joist failed in catenary action or not. Which, there is photographic evidence that some did. This is more than enough to show that it could also happen on other portions of the building that weren't visible/well-photographed. To steal from myself on the SLC forums:


Looking at the pictures, the floor joists are not just sagging, some have failed completely, though not at the connection (I'm looking at Fig 2-40 on pg 62 and Fig 2-42 on pg. 64). On Fig 2-42 the angle of the joists is increasing. If you've had your calculus lessons, the derivative of the angle over it's length is increasing. This is typical of a beam cantilevered from a connection. In a connection pinned at both ends (roughly what these connections are, nothing is really truly pinned though most connections are close) the highest slope of the angle of the joist will be at or near the face of the connection, depending on the fixity of that connection. This is seen in Fig 2-40.

In the case of Fig 2-42 case, the bearing seat and the bolts form a bastardized moment connection to hold up the joist. The fact that the joist doesn't fail immediately probably means that it is not that greatly loaded, but with the damage to the floors above and below, this creates a huge structural problem as the unbraced length of those columns just tripled or quadrupled and they have a very large force couple applied. For Fig 2-40 (and 2-41 for that matter) the joists are literally pulling on the columns. The load here will likely be much larger than seen in Fig 2-42 as well. In any case, there is massive damage to the floor systems and as such the columns just lost a great deal of their axial capacity (without even looking at the induced moments from failed joists or tugging from sagged joists).

Take a look at the pictures in those figures and tell me the joists seen have not failed due to heat.

[Vincent Vega]

Can Apollo 20 at least agree that:

1. The aircraft impact could have stripped of significant amounts of fireproofing off perimeter columns, trusses, and core columns either by physical impact or impact shock. In fact it is likley, proven or not.

2. Steel perimeter columns, and trusses that had their fireproofing stripped off and exposed to fire would have been significantly weakened durning the period of time involved.

3. The impact itself would have damaged a signifcant number of floor trusses, perimeter columns and even a few core columns.

I think these three points are pretty safe bets. If he can't agree on these then there is no point in engaging.

[Apollo20]

FactCheck/Gravy:

First, about those pictures

The point is the trusses visible in Fig 6.9 are obviously disconnected from their truss seats. They are no longer a factor in the fate of the building. It's the trusses that are still connected that we need to consider. Unfortunately these are not visible. However, if any of the trusses on floors 95 to 98 of WTC 1, say, were still in place, how much impact damage did they receive? You can't have it both ways... We are talking about the heating effects of the fires AFTER impact to trusses that were still connected....

Even NIST argues that no structural element in the Twin Towers saw a heat flux much higher than about 100 kW/m^2 for more than about 15 minutes.

Gravy: As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B!

What was the justification for doing that?

[gumboot]

On MY monitor, I see the arrows pointing to trusses and NOT floor pans.

On MY monitor I see the trusses a shade red as opposed to the insulation pointed to which is white on the perimeter. This strongly suggests to me I am looking at the rust color of iron/steel.



According to NIST the red is the paint primer that the WTC steel was covered with before construction.

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Dr. Greening,

To be honest, I have not been following this thread so I may be a little off topic. However, I do have some input. First of all, though, I would like to thank you for your input to both this forum and for the 9/11 research you have done.

The fireproofing was removed from sections of some exterior columns of both towers due to the impact of a 767 airliner. Judging by photographic evidence provided, the fireproofing appears to have been removed from the columns near and directly at the point of impact. Now, we all know that the plane entered the building and exploded shortly after.

If the fireproofing was removed on perimeter columns of both towers, I would have to assign a high probability that fireproofing would also have become dislodged within the towers near and directly at the point of impact. I find it hard to believe that the fireproofing within the building would have somehow been secured to the columns and trusses any better than the outside of the building. Again, I am not the most educated person on this subject, but I am more than willing to learn. I'm not for a second saying "I'm right and you're wrong".

I do admit though, I haven't read this part of the NIST report yet. I'm getting there though ;)

Thanks
Doc.

[rwguinn]

FactCheck/Gravy:

First, about those pictures

The point is the trusses visible in Fig 6.9 are obviously disconnected from their truss seats. They are no longer a factor in the fate of the building.
How can you possibly believe that? IT the floor trusses are disconnected, don't you think that maybe the stability of the structure which depends on the floor trusses for its integrity might be just a weeeeeeee bit compromised?
It's the trusses that are still connected that we need to consider. Unfortunately these are not visible. However, if any of the trusses on floors 95 to 98 of WTC 1, say, were still in place, how much impact damage did they receive? You can't have it both ways... We are talking about the heating effects of the fires AFTER impact to trusses that were still connected....
Straw man--neither the impact, nor the fire, destroyed the building.
It took both, in combination.

Even NIST argues that no structural element in the Twin Towers saw a heat flux much higher than about 100 kW/m^2 for more than about 15 minutes.

Gravy: As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B!

What was the justification for doing that?
Since you seem to have the drop on us mere engineers, suppose you tellus?

[FactCheck]

FactCheck/Gravy:

First, about those pictures

The point is the trusses visible in Fig 6.9 are obviously disconnected from their truss seats. They are no longer a factor in the fate of the building. It's the trusses that are still connected that we need to consider. Unfortunately these are not visible. However, if any of the trusses on floors 95 to 98 of WTC 1, say, were still in place, how much impact damage did they receive? You can't have it both ways... We are talking about the heating effects of the fires AFTER impact to trusses that were still connected....

The trusses, while no longer a factor are STILL an indication of the "unseeable" trusses within.

What is the evidence we have?

Photographic evidence of fireproofing missing from trusses as far into the impact area as the photo allows
some fireproofing missing on the perimeter columns on the other side of the building.
The trusses sagged indicating that they expanded into the columns from heat
fires which were started by an airliner impact and jet fuel soaking account for why the steel sagged
Controlled experiments by NIST which show cieling temps at 1,100C
UL tests which show sagging of ONE floor even with 1/2" of fireproofing. While it didn't fail, it also wasn't accross muliple floors and wasn't stripped clean of fireproofing. It didn't have the weight of all the floors above bearing down on the columns
A history of fireproofing falling off regularlly BEFORE 9/11
My evidence - GZ photos show columns and trusses stripped almost CLEAN of fireproofing. It came off durring a collapse and not subject to the explosive force of an airliner impact.

What more does a critical thinker need?

[MRC_Hans]

Would creating a group called "Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" (Or something else) help counter the so called scholars for 9/11 truth? Would civil engineers get involved to stop the nonsense?

I think a group like this could put the nail in the truther coffin but I don't think they would bother with such an org. I think it does deserve debate though. Maybe we should try? Is it a waste of time and why?

Answering the OP without reading the rest of the thread:

Have you noticed how truthers react to seasoned and well-qualified arguments? Right, they ignore it, twist it around, label the counterpart liar/shill, otherwise slander the counterpart, change the subject, persist as if nothing has happened, or any combination thereof.

This is NOT meant as a threat of violence, but is simply an objective observation: The only thing that can put the nail in the coffin for the typical truther is, unfortunately, a hammer.

Hans

[Apollo20]

Doc:

Thanks for the input- glad to see some folks can still be polite!

The place to look for NIST's estimates of the loss of SFRM is NIST NCSTAR 1-5G. Here you will find diagrams indicating estimates of the "fireproofing damage" for WTC 1 & 2. Focussing on WTC 1 for simplicity, I would say that NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts!

NIST also estimate that, on average, accelerations of over 40 g's, and sometimes as high as 300 g's, were required to dislodge SFRM from planar steel surfaces by hard impact.

So much for the idea that the SFRM was easy to dislodge.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How can you possibly believe that? IT the floor trusses are disconnected, don't you think that maybe the stability of the structure which depends on the floor trusses for its integrity might be just a weeeeeeee bit compromised?
<snip>
I think what Apollo20 is saying, is that the disconnected trusses can contribute no further to the collapse initiation than they already have. Their immediate disconnection did not cause the collapse, therefore we only need examine the remaining connected trusses to understand what happened. Part of the examination would, of course, take in to account the extra stresses caused by some columns being disconnected.

[FactCheck]

Answering the OP without reading the rest of the thread:

Have you noticed how truthers react to seasoned and well-qualified arguments? Right, they ignore it, twist it around, label the counterpart liar/shill, otherwise slander the counterpart, change the subject, persist as if nothing has happened, or any combination thereof.

This is NOT meant as a threat of violence, but is simply an objective observation: The only thing that can put the nail in the coffin for the typical truther is, unfortunately, a hammer.

HansI never waste time addressing the conspiracy theorists. It's the people who are new to this and are asking honest questions I do this for. I have many examples of people who sent me e-mail because I gave them one of the only alternative views. One said I helped them get a good nights sleep for the first time in weeks because they didn't read an alternative view until they came to my site.

My site reaches thousands of people. Don't assume because the die hard truthers here don't change that no one will.

[MRC_Hans]

Doc:

Thanks for the input- glad to see some folks can still be polite!

The place to look for NIST's estimates of the loss of SFRM is NIST NCSTAR 1-5G. Here you will find diagrams indicating estimates of the "fireproofing damage" for WTC 1 & 2. Focussing on WTC 1 for simplicity, I would say that NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts!

Only if all fireproofing was removed (assuming that those areas contained 25 tonnes of insulation, I don't know where you have this number from). However, to expose a beam to heat from the fire, only part of the insulation has to be removed.

NIST also estimate that, on average, accelerations of over 40 g's, and sometimes as high as 300 g's, were required to dislodge SFRM from planar steel surfaces by hard impact.

So, which levels of accelerations would you expect from an airliner at cruise speed impacting a stationary structure?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
My site reaches thousands of people. Don't assume because the die hard truthers here don't change that no one will.

Oh, so does mine (it is not, currently, addressing the 911 issue). My point is more that the present effort is quite adequate to change the view of anybody with a rudimentary ability for critical thinking, and such an effort needs to be continued. However, there is no reason to expect that a more qualified effort will settle the issue once and for all, because the die-hard truthers will continue to throw out misinformation.

Hans

[FactCheck]

Oh, so does mine (it is not, currently, addressing the 911 issue). My point is more that the present effort is quite adequate to change the view of anybody with a rudimentary ability for critical thinking, and such an effort needs to be continued. However, there is no reason to expect that a more qualified effort will settle the issue once and for all, because the die-hard truthers will continue to throw out misinformation.

HansEvolution is the same way yet scientists had to get on a list to counter the small amount of scientists who suggests it never happened.

They have the "scholars for 9/11 truth" because it fools people into believe there is some scientific validity to the idea the towers were blown up. I believe we need to counter that by showing they are in the minority. People are generally more lazy than stupid. If someone says Just look at all the scholars who believe towers were blown up!" you need someone else to say "Yeah but look at all the scholars who say it was the fires"... The argument is removed and no further actions by the fence sitter is needed.

I am well aware that NOTHING will stop them just as NOTHING will stop creationists. That doesn't mean we should rest on what we've already done. But this is just my homble opinion. :)

[MRC_Hans]

Well, yes, you might be right. It's just that this "Look! Our scolars outnumber theirs" thingy is certainly not to my liking. I do think that the important thing is not how many people believe in either side, but that the right people understand the facts. A bit cynical, I admit.

Hans

[rwguinn]

I think what Apollo20 is saying, is that the disconnected trusses can contribute no further to the collapse initiation than they already have. Their immediate disconnection did not cause the collapse, therefore we only need examine the remaining connected trusses to understand what happened. Part of the examination would, of course, take in to account the extra stresses caused by some columns being disconnected.

And if so, that is an incorrect conclusion.
One cannot examine a system by considering the parts individually. If you try, you get the description of an elephant by blind men.

[FactCheck]

Well, yes, you might be right. It's just that this "Look! Our scolars outnumber theirs" thingy is certainly not to my liking. I do think that the important thing is not how many people believe in either side, but that the right people understand the facts. A bit cynical, I admit.

HansYes, I also hate having to even things out for the intellectually lazy but "it is, what it is..."

[FactCheck]

Doc:

Thanks for the input- glad to see some folks can still be polite!

The place to look for NIST's estimates of the loss of SFRM is NIST NCSTAR 1-5G. Here you will find diagrams indicating estimates of the "fireproofing damage" for WTC 1 & 2. Focussing on WTC 1 for simplicity, I would say that NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts!

NIST also estimate that, on average, accelerations of over 40 g's, and sometimes as high as 300 g's, were required to dislodge SFRM from planar steel surfaces by hard impact.

So much for the idea that the SFRM was easy to dislodge.How does the change the real world evidence I presented?

[Apollo20]

FactCheck:

My concerns are centered on the performance of passive fire protection materials on the truss assemblies in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and statements made by engineers in the NIST report on this VERY IMPORTANT topic.

So let's look closely at the NIST Report's statements on "damage" to the passive fire protection, or SFRM on the trusses in the Twin Towers, as in these quotes:

NCSTAR 1-2: "The aircraft impact damage to the EXTERIOR of the WTC towers could be visibly identified from the video and photographic records. However, no visible information could be obtained for the extent of damage to the INTERIOR of the towers."

And:

"The extent of dislodged fireproofing was ESTIMATED by considering fireproofing damage only to structural components in the direct path of the debris."

And:

"The truss floor system on floors 94 through 96 were damaged and sagged downward as a result of the impact loading."

So far so good...., but now we go to NCSTAR 1-6 to find more information on the question as to HOW NIST actually estimated the thermal insulation damage:

"The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possible damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced disloging could not be established."

And:

"Where partition walls and furnishings remained intact, the insulation was also ASSUMED to remain intact."

And:

"This ASSUMPTION was consistent with the level of modeling detail...
if substantial portions of the insulation were removed."

At this point I start to get the feeling that NIST is admitting that it really is unable to say anything definitive about the true extent of "insulation damage".

But "insulation damage" is key to NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

And the NIST Report is supposed to convey the message "CASE CLOSED"

Nevertheless, NIST's conclusions appear to be based on "estimates", "indications", "if" and "might have resulted in" statements and an almost total lack of meaningful experimental data!

[WildCat]

At this point I start to get the feeling that NIST is admitting that it really is unable to say anything definitive about the true extent of "insulation damage".
I see, nothing short of the invention of a time machine so that engineers can travel back in time and examine the WTC prior to collapse will satisfy you.

You are embarrassing yourself, I suggest you stick to chemistry and end your foray into the field of forensic engineering. Yeah, I know, you're so much smarter and much more clever than those clowns at NIST... :rolleyes:

[Apollo20]

Not at all... they did the best they could do under the circumstances

[tsig]

Not at all... they did the best they could do under the circumstances

Just how would you do better?

You ever hear" Those who say something cannot be done should get out of the way of those that are doing it"


Here's an experiment that you as a scientist can do

Get some spray-on insulation

Use it as directed.

Put a 500mph spray of water on it.

[T.A.M.]

Not at all... they did the best they could do under the circumstances

Now that is a well intended, noncorrosive statement.

I do not think there is any other way it could have been done. There was no way to "estimate" the SFRM removal percentage, beyond the way they did it...like you and others have said, they could not access the trusses, or columns , post collapse to examine them.

I think it is a legitimate, logical assumption, yes ASSUMPTION, that given comments made by people who worked there. Some of these people said that the insulation could be seen to fall away with vibration of a sort much less than that created by a crashing Jet Airliner travelling at 500mph (someone help me out with the link to where another poster put this quote up).

From NISTNCSTAR 1-6:

The adhesive strength of BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F to steel coated with primer paint (average value of 171 psf to 185 psf) was found to be a third to a half of the adhesive strength to steel that had not been primed (average values of 450 psf to 666 psf). The SFRM products used in the WTC towers were applied to steel components with primer paint. Cohesive strengths varied from average values of 367 psf to 610 psf.

So someone in the know, how strong is this in terms of what vibration it would take to dislodge such materials from the steel.

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

At this point I start to get the feeling that NIST is admitting that it really is unable to say anything definitive about the true extent of "insulation damage".

But "insulation damage" is key to NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

And the NIST Report is supposed to convey the message "CASE CLOSED"

Nevertheless, NIST's conclusions appear to be based on "estimates", "indications", "if" and "might have resulted in" statements and an almost total lack of meaningful experimental data!

I already pointed out it out but let me clarify... Without the help of a time machine and instruments inside the towers before the collapse, it seems impossible for anyone (this includes you and everyone on the planet) to know how much insulation was removed. Those quotes from the NIST just confirm this. I can see you are finding it dificult to produced a single alternative method for gathering this information which agrees with the photographic and video record. You seem to want to use calculations over hard photographic and video evidence.

We once talked about how calculations must agree with the observable evidence or the calculations must be leaving something out. (Physorg) YOu seemed to agree. NIST is just admiting the truth, they don't know everything which affected the fireproofing and are falling back on estimates and indications. I find nothing unscientific about this. In fact, I think by saying they don't know the unknowable only improves their credibility in my view, not hurt it.

I would bet my bottom dollar, even the engineers at NIST don't think they they are "the end, all be all" on the collpase. The report is a "Leading hypothesis". That's all anyone will ever have. Even the conspiracy theorists can't have more than that. Suggesting there CAN be some perfect, infallable theory of the collapse seems unreasonable to me.

I also note you didn't answer the question.

[FactCheck]

Just how would you do better?

You ever hear" Those who say something cannot be done should get out of the way of those that are doing it"


Here's an experiment that you as a scientist can do

Get some spray-on insulation

Use it as directed.

Put a 500mph spray of water on it.Add some 500 mile per hour desks, chairs, wallboard, doors, plumbing, penicles, pins, steel, luggage, jet engines, landing gear, and even humans. That's still not everything that flew around the impact floors.

[Unfit4Command]

That fig 6.9 of damage to WTC 1 is most interesting. Judging by its color, I am not sure that the section of flooring labelled as No. 1 does indeed show that the thermal insulation has been removed. And if that is the underside of a floor pan facing out there was no requirement to spray insulation there anyway.....

But let's not dwell on these issues. The fact is the trusses labelled No. 1 and 2 have been disconnected from the structure! Who cares if they have thermal protection or not! We need to worry about floor trusses that were still connected after the aircraft impacts and still formed part of the support structure. We are talking about how these floor trusses would heat up.

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to have vanished on the remaining, more or less intact trusses does not make it true.

It sounds like you WANT the thermal insulation to have stayed connected to the steel. I just showed a few images showing how some thermal insulation was removed due to the impacts on both trusses and some perimeter columns. Did this insulation really effect the collapse? Probably not, it's just an example of thermal insulation being removed from the impact.
Since we can't see the trusses that were inside of the building, how do you recommend going about this issue?

If at least some of the thermal insulation wasn't removed, do you believe the trusses would have sagged so quickly due to the heat? Like in this image:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/saggingfloors8.jpg

Even some of the perimeter columns are showing signs of weakening and that's only over a 51 minute period, so much for the multiple hour fire rating on the insulation if some of it wasn't removed.

[Apollo20]

In NIST NCSTAR 1-2 we find figures showing the estimated damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs. For WTC 1 these show severe damage only to floors 95 and 96, with minor damage to floors 94 and 97. Nevertheless in NCSTAR 1-6 NIST show insulation damage to FIVE floors! More precisely, the diagrams, such as those in Figure 5-14, indicate that about 30 % of the insulation was "damaged" on floors 94, 95, 96 and 97, plus minor insulation damage to floor 98. How could floor 94 be as damaged as floor 95 when the damage estimate is based, as NIST clearly state, on this criterion?

"If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses ABOVE these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged."

But this is not the only problem with NIST's analysis of insulation damage in the Twin Towers because NIST is very vague about the meaning of the term "insulation damage". I would assume that "damage" means partial destruction or removal. However, it appears that "damage" actually means "complete removal" when applied to the FDS model.

In this sense the NIST Report is not "CONSERVATIVE" as it claims to be. In fact, I would say that NIST removed insulation until heating of the steel sufficient to bring down the towers was achieved. This is why I claim that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I believe NIST have missed what really happened to the towers by ignoring the CHEMICAL EFFECTS of the fires. As I said before, NIST may have the "right answer" but they have the "wrong reason"!

[FactCheck]

I think the suggestion is the insulation itself could be heating the trusses enough to make them sag. Lets leave aside the conspiracy theory for one moment. Lets say there was some chemical reaction in the fireproofing which happens unintentionally. (However unlikely) I would suspect that kind of heat would produce an effect we could see. The trusses would be glowing red after the fires passed. Maybe some smoke from the reaction, something... Instead we have absolutely no evidence of any reaction linking to the trusses. If there is I haven't seen it.

You still haven't posted how you would go about investigating this. What would give you the best result given the evidence?

Bashing NIST's approach is nice and all but doesn't produce evidence you would do any better.

I also suspect a percent of the concrete would have been crushed to baseball and sand size. It not unreasonable to think the insulation was sandblasted away.

You still CAN'T know how much insulation was there BEFORE the crash. I suspect large areas had little insulation given the evidence.

[rwguinn]

In NIST NCSTAR 1-2 we find figures showing the estimated damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs. For WTC 1 these show severe damage only to floors 95 and 96, with minor damage to floors 94 and 97. Nevertheless in NCSTAR 1-6 NIST show insulation damage to FIVE floors! More precisely, the diagrams, such as those in Figure 5-14, indicate that about 30 % of the insulation was "damaged" on floors 94, 95, 96 and 97, plus minor insulation damage to floor 98. How could floor 94 be as damaged as floor 95 when the damage estimate is based, as NIST clearly state, on this criterion?

"If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses ABOVE these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged."

But this is not the only problem with NIST's analysis of insulation damage in the Twin Towers because NIST is very vague about the meaning of the term "insulation damage". I would assume that "damage" means partial destruction or removal. However, it appears that "damage" actually means "complete removal" when applied to the FDS model.

In this sense the NIST Report is not "CONSERVATIVE" as it claims to be. In fact, I would say that NIST removed insulation until heating of the steel sufficient to bring down the towers was achieved. This is why I claim that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I believe NIST have missed what really happened to the towers by ignoring the CHEMICAL EFFECTS of the fires. As I said before, NIST may have the "right answer" but they have the "wrong reason"!

Ithelps if you consider that steel is an excellent heat conductor.
If insulation (Fire protectant) is damaged in an area, undamaged in another, and farther along, damaged again, this can actually make the situation worse.
Insulation does not know which side is hot, and which side is cold. It is merely a "resistor" to heat transfer, and is effective at maintaining only a differential temperature across it.
If heat gets into the steel at a damaged point, the insulation along the undamaged part actually aids in the heat transmission along the steel elements. It can't get out to the external environment--the insulation keeps it in. Add to that the fire buring in the external environment, and you can have much better heat transfer along the steel than might occur if all the insulation had been removed.
Life--and reality--is full of assumptions. Engineering is essentially replicating reality through mathematics. The fact that the models used duplicate the observed overall reality means to an engineer that the assumptions were generally correct. The minute details can be nit-picked to death--but they don't change the gross reality.

ETA-I see factcheck is thinking similar thought--but also consider--if the steel behind (inside) the insulation were heated, and even if the fire passed to another area, the remaining insulation now acts to keep th steel inside hot--and there is a condition called "CREEP" that makes things even worse when metals are heated.

[FactCheck]

Ithelps if you consider that steel is an excellent heat conductor.
If insulation (Fire protectant) is damaged in an area, undamaged in another, and farther along, damaged again, this can actually make the situation worse.
Insulation does not know which side is hot, and which side is cold. It is merely a "resistor" to heat transfer, and is effective at maintaining only a differential temperature across it.
If heat gets into the steel at a damaged point, the insulation along the undamaged part actually aids in the heat transmission along the steel elements. It can't get out to the external environment--the insulation keeps it in. Add to that the fire buring in the external environment, and you can have much better heat transfer along the steel than might occur if all the insulation had been removed.
Life--and reality--is full of assumptions. Engineering is essentially replicating reality through mathematics. The fact that the models used duplicate the observed overall reality means to an engineer that the assumptions were generally correct. The minute details can be nit-picked to death--but they don't change the gross reality.

ETA-I see factcheck is thinking similar thought--but also consider--if the steel behind (inside) the insulation were heated, and even if the fire passed to another area, the remaining insulation now acts to keep th steel inside hot--and there is a condition called "CREEP" that makes things even worse when metals are heated.That makes perfect sense.

Exibit A

http://www.debunking911.com/19095138-O.jpg

Lets play "Wheres the fireproofing!"

[Unfit4Command]

I don't think using pieces of steel from the buildings after they already collapsed is a very good way of proving that the fire proofing was removed/damaged. There's not really anyway to prove 100% that NIST is right about the amount that was removed.

The Sight and Sound Theater that partially collapsed in Pennsylvania is a good example of how fire proofing can be removed, I'm not sure about what kind of fire proofing was used in the building compared to the Twin Towers though.

From the FEMA report:
"The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area."
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf)

Also on Debunking911.com

What we do know right now is:
-Some of the thermal insulation was removed based on photographic evidence of some perimeter columns and collapsed trusses.
-The floor trusses sagged based on photographic evidence in just a 51 minute period and weakened the perimeter columns. This shows that some of the thermal insulation was most likely removed from those trusses.
______________________________

Based on the impact of the 767's, and the photographic evidence of removed thermal insulation, how much do you believe would be a good estimate for the amount that was damaged/removed, Apollo? I'm just curious as to what you believe a better way would be to investigate NIST's claims.

Thanks :)

[rwguinn]

Snip>
Based on the impact of the 767's, and the photographic evidence of removed thermal insulation, how much do you believe would be a good estimate for the amount that was damaged/removed, Apollo? I'm just curious as to what you believe a better way would be to investigate NIST's claims.

Thanks :)
That is what engineers do very well--at least, some do. Match reality to assumptions.
A hypothetical list of possibilities:
What could possibly cause the floors to sag like that?
Increased load? possibly--but where's it come from?
Decreased support? possibly, but we are supported only on the ends, anyway, and its sagging in the middle
Could they be sagging due to increased temperature? Lots of fire around there, very possible
What explains the situation best? If the beams are sagging, and there's fire around, then heat could be the issue, as it does increase ductility, and those floor trusses should have failed at that deflection under normal temperatures,,, So how'd the heat get into the structure? It's insulated.
Could the insulation have been damaged? or did somebody put heating elements between the beam and the insulation?
That last makes as much sense as molding C4 to the rebar...
I becha the insulation got damaged, maybe by the big-a## airplane and all its payload ramming into the area at 500 MPH!

[FactCheck]

I don't think using pieces of steel from the buildings after they already collapsed is a very good way of proving that the fire proofing was removed/damaged. There's not really anyway to prove 100% that NIST is right about the amount that was removed.

The Sight and Sound Theater that partially collapsed in Pennsylvania is a good example of how fire proofing can be removed, I'm not sure about what kind of fire proofing was used in the building compared to the Twin Towers though.

From the FEMA report:
"The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area."
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf)

Also on Debunking911.com

What we do know right now is:
-Some of the thermal insulation was removed based on photographic evidence of some perimeter columns and collapsed trusses.
-The floor trusses sagged based on photographic evidence in just a 51 minute period and weakened the perimeter columns. This shows that some of the thermal insulation was most likely removed from those trusses.
______________________________

Based on the impact of the 767's, and the photographic evidence of removed thermal insulation, how much do you believe would be a good estimate for the amount that was damaged/removed, Apollo? I'm just curious as to what you believe a better way would be to investigate NIST's claims.

Thanks :)Forgive my communication skills. I seem to have suggested something I never intended. I wasn't suggesting the photos of perimeter columns at GZ PROVES 100% that there was NO fireproofing. It tells me three things...

The fall alone was enough to remove fireproofing from the trusses. The airliner impact should have been much worse
There never was fire proofing
some combination of the above

Give me another possibility. Why is there little evidence of fireproofing on GZ?

[FactCheck]

"I becha the insulation got damaged, maybe by the big-a## airplane and all its payload ramming into the area at 500 MPH!"

I don't think the NIST could have said it any better. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"I becha the insulation got damaged, maybe by the big-a## airplane and all its payload ramming into the area at 500 MPH!"

I don't think the NIST could have said it any better. :)
But at the end of the day, that is just an argument from personal incredulity, in this case, "I can't believe that the plane wouldn't have damaged the fireproofing."

[rwguinn]

But at the end of the day, that is just an argument from personal incredulity, in this case, "I can't believe that the plane wouldn't have damaged the fireproofing."

Not quite. It is an argument from deductive reasoning, as that little chunk was taken out of context from my whole post. By looking at the situation as it existed, and all the possibilities leading to the result, one must conclude the removal method, or that the stuff wasn't even there to start with.
Either option leads to the scenario that occurred, and arguming about the actual reason that the insulation was not there, or what %of was not there is much like arguing over whether you heard about the situation at 9:01:30 AM or 9:01:29 AM.
It just doesn't matter, unless you are excesively Anal Retentive, or trying to prove your superiority over other human beings.

[Unfit4Command]

Forgive my communication skills. I seem to have suggested something I never intended. I wasn't suggesting the photos of perimeter columns at GZ PROVES 100% that there was NO fireproofing. It tells me three things...
The fall alone was enough to remove fireproofing from the trusses. The airliner impact should have been much worse
There never was fire proofing
some combination of the aboveGive me another possibility. Why is there little evidence of fireproofing on GZ?

I see what you meant, my communication skills are probably more of a problem. I was just saying that it's not the best way to prove that the fire proofing was damaged or removed. I certainly shows how the thermal insulation was removed from quite a bit of steel from the collapses, and like you said, the airliners would have done much worse.

[rwguinn]

<SNIP> and like you said, the airliners would have done much worse.
Actually, that is the one statement that is not backed by evidence, and the most vulnerable to misintripretation and cherry picking.
The dropping of the entire load of structure and contents was a very energy dense event. It takes energy to remove the fire protectant.
There was a lot of rubbing, scraping, banging and bouncing going on during the collapse, which would have contributed to the removal.
All you can actiually say is that it is or isn't there, post-collapse.
Prior to collapse, one may surmise that the retardant is absent, based on observable conditions and knowledge of how things work and how they are put together. How it came to be that the retardane is absent is not really the point.

[T.A.M.]

In NIST NCSTAR 1-2 we find figures showing the estimated damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs. For WTC 1 these show severe damage only to floors 95 and 96, with minor damage to floors 94 and 97. Nevertheless in NCSTAR 1-6 NIST show insulation damage to FIVE floors! More precisely, the diagrams, such as those in Figure 5-14, indicate that about 30 % of the insulation was "damaged" on floors 94, 95, 96 and 97, plus minor insulation damage to floor 98. How could floor 94 be as damaged as floor 95 when the damage estimate is based, as NIST clearly state, on this criterion?

"If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses ABOVE these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged."

But this is not the only problem with NIST's analysis of insulation damage in the Twin Towers because NIST is very vague about the meaning of the term "insulation damage". I would assume that "damage" means partial destruction or removal. However, it appears that "damage" actually means "complete removal" when applied to the FDS model.

In this sense the NIST Report is not "CONSERVATIVE" as it claims to be. In fact, I would say that NIST removed insulation until heating of the steel sufficient to bring down the towers was achieved. This is why I claim that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I believe NIST have missed what really happened to the towers by ignoring the CHEMICAL EFFECTS of the fires. As I said before, NIST may have the "right answer" but they have the "wrong reason"!

Bolding mine. Do you have any proof for this accusation (manipulation of evidence to validate a desired outcome) or is it just based on your opinion. If just opinion, can you explain what makes you think this?

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Dear JREFers:

Thanks for all the helpful discussion of this topic, and I apologize if I have not answered everyone's individual questions/complaints. I really have more questions than answers myself....

My point is not to argue that insulation was not removed (sorry about the double negative!) by the aircraft impacts, but how NIST estimated it. I think the collapse itself was so violent that the fact that insulation appears to be stripped off steel sections in the rubble pile is not too helpful. And as for pictures of the state of the insulation inside the fire-affected zones of the towers, we have very little to go on there too. So we are forced to imagine what might have happened to the insulation in areas we cannot even see. NIST has a way of doing this that may be ok, but I believe is not very convincing.

What I am doing as an alternative approach is to turn the problem on its head and ask how hot did some areas of the fire-affected zones get, AND WHY? NIST has assumed conventional "fuels" were the only source of heat and are therefore stuck in the hydrocarbon flame temperature box. This limits the achievable air temperatures to about 1100 deg C (I think!). NIST realize this and even invoke the presence of "soffits" to trap more heat near the ceilings in case B -see NCSTAR 1-5F.

However, I am sure the actual temperatures were much higher than this because of chemical effects- and please, I AM NOTE SUGGESTING THERMITE, believe me. But if these chemical effects were present in and around the floor trusses, the need to strip so much insulation is obviated. This should actually make NIST happy!

[FactCheck]

Dear JREFers:

Thanks for all the helpful discussion of this topic, and I apologize if I have not answered everyone's individual questions/complaints. I really have more questions than answers myself....

My point is not to argue that insulation was not removed (sorry about the double negative!) by the aircraft impacts, but how NIST estimated it. I think the collapse itself was so violent that the fact that insulation appears to be stripped off steel sections in the rubble pile is not too helpful. And as for pictures of the state of the insulation inside the fire-affected zones of the towers, we have very little to go on there too. So we are forced to imagine what might have happened to the insulation in areas we cannot even see. NIST has a way of doing this that may be ok, but I believe is not very convincing.

What I am doing as an alternative approach is to turn the problem on its head and ask how hot did some areas of the fire-affected zones get, AND WHY? NIST has assumed conventional "fuels" were the only source of heat and are therefore stuck in the hydrocarbon flame temperature box. This limits the achievable air temperatures to about 1100 deg C (I think!). NIST realize this and even invoke the presence of "soffits" to trap more heat near the ceilings in case B -see NCSTAR 1-5F.

However, I am sure the actual temperatures were much higher than this because of chemical effects- and please, I AM NOTE SUGGESTING THERMITE, believe me. But if these chemical effects were present in and around the floor trusses, the need to strip so much insulation is obviated. This should actually make NIST happy!For the sake of argument, lets say for one moment the trusses had NO insulation on them. The workers missed it, the insulation fell off completely, whatever... How does your method reach this conclusion?

Why would the temp have to be higher?

Also, how is this not doing what you criticize the NIST of doing? They create soffits and you create chemicals...

[rwguinn]

Dear JREFers:

Thanks for all the helpful discussion of this topic, and I apologize if I have not answered everyone's individual questions/complaints. I really have more questions than answers myself....

My point is not to argue that insulation was not removed (sorry about the double negative!) by the aircraft impacts, but how NIST estimated it. I think the collapse itself was so violent that the fact that insulation appears to be stripped off steel sections in the rubble pile is not too helpful. And as for pictures of the state of the insulation inside the fire-affected zones of the towers, we have very little to go on there too. So we are forced to imagine what might have happened to the insulation in areas we cannot even see. NIST has a way of doing this that may be ok, but I believe is not very convincing.

What I am doing as an alternative approach is to turn the problem on its head and ask how hot did some areas of the fire-affected zones get, AND WHY? NIST has assumed conventional "fuels" were the only source of heat and are therefore stuck in the hydrocarbon flame temperature box. This limits the achievable air temperatures to about 1100 deg C (I think!). NIST realize this and even invoke the presence of "soffits" to trap more heat near the ceilings in case B -see NCSTAR 1-5F.

However, I am sure the actual temperatures were much higher than this because of chemical effects- and please, I AM NOTE SUGGESTING THERMITE, believe me. But if these chemical effects were present in and around the floor trusses, the need to strip so much insulation is obviated. This should actually make NIST happy!
Well, I personally believ that you are trying to answer questions that do not exist, but have at it anyway.
The NIST analysis was based on what is known, and sought mechanical answers to the situation. Some exotic chemical reactions were judged to be so remote an occurrance as to be a zero probability. Ok, you're a chemist, so I will grant you more knowledge in that area than I have.
Do you not think that there were chemists involved in the actual investigation? Or at least consulted on products of combustion?
I too believe that there were local hotspots of greater than the average of 1000-1100C. But that is what average is--some places got hotter, some stayed cooler.
The practical limits of processing and modeling made generalizations necessary. (2.5 million nodes= 15x10^6 degrees of freedom--ever tried to invert 150000000 X 15000000 matrix? Even a nicely tri-diagonalized one?)That's what good engineers do--make generalizations based on reality, observation, and the limits of available analysis. The hardest part is determining what is important and what is not.
Local effects (local being smaller than 1-2 elements of the model) are generally insignificant. Defining this type of generalization as a "Mistake" is awfull elitist, and dead wrong.
I feel that your "chemical reactions" are in that category. That is not the same as saying they did not exist--it's just that in the scheme of things, they did not matter.
If you feel the need to be right, as opposed to those pesky engineers whose "mistakes" cancelled out, then by all means go ahead.
Just don't expect me to take that sort of nit-picking seriously.

[Apollo20]

Well, ok, time to move on... The engineers have it all figured!

[T.A.M.]

I would not say that the two arguments are mutually exclusive.

There may have been areas where all the insulation was knocked off, and hence the heat from the office fires alone caused steel weakening and failure of the steel in THAT area, while in other areas where NIST assumes the insulation was knocked off, but perhaps wasnt, than maybe Greenings theories would hold true, that other sources, chemical reactions, causes sufficiently higher temps, so that components that actually had the fireproofing on them failed as well.

TAM:)

[Newtons Bit]

A soffit is just a ceiling in this case. They can be flammable, and sometimes they're not.

As for NIST removing insulation until the building collapsed, I really don't have problem with this. They have an end result: the building collapsed. Two things led to this collapse, direct structural damage and fire. Mixing and matching until one finds a combination that causes the building to collapse is not far fetched to me so long as those combinations resemble what was actually observed. This, like many engineering problems, is iterative.

[AZCat]

Well, ok, time to move on... The engineers have it all figured!

I don't really think this was called for, especially considering that up-thread you were commenting on "politeness". Perhaps you could put aside your bias against engineers as your contribution to a more polite atmosphere?

[FactCheck]

I would not say that the two arguments are mutually exclusive.

There may have been areas where all the insulation was knocked off, and hence the heat from the office fires alone caused steel weakening and failure of the steel in THAT area, while in other areas where NIST assumes the insulation was knocked off, but perhaps wasnt, than maybe Greenings theories would hold true, that other sources, chemical reactions, causes sufficiently higher temps, so that components that actually had the fireproofing on them failed as well.

TAM:)Yes but then we are doing exactly what Apollo said the NIST is doing. At least NIST has SOME evidence to back up its conclusions.

[pagan]

Would creating a group called "Civil Engineers for 9/11 honesty" (Or something else) help counter the so called scholars for 9/11 truth? Would civil engineers get involved to stop the nonsense?

I think a group like this could put the nail in the truther coffin but I don't think they would bother with such an org. I think it does deserve debate though. Maybe we should try? Is it a waste of time and why?

Hahaha, are you serious?

Do you really mean that you will find Independent civil Engineers or other academics who's not a part of or payed by the adm to support your silly conspiracy theory?

How many of those do we have on our side a couple of hundred? I will give you a lnk to the latest two.:)

[AZCat]

Hahaha, are you serious?

Do you really mean that you will find Independent civil Engineers or other academics who's not a part of or payed by the adm to support your silly conspiracy theory?

How many of those do we have on our side a couple of hundred? I will give you a lnk to the latest two.:) (bolding mine)

Wait! You mean that Archer Daniels Midland (http://www.admworld.com/) is responsible for 9/11?

[Newtons Bit]

I'd list my name as well AZCat, but it's too unique and I turn up on google :(

[WildCat]

Hahaha, are you serious?

Do you really mean that you will find Independent civil Engineers or other academics who's not a part of or payed by the adm to support your silly conspiracy theory?

How many of those do we have on our side a couple of hundred? I will give you a lnk to the latest two.:)
That's funny, you had to say "or other academics" just so you could say "a couple of hundred" instead of "a couple". :p

[pagan]

Here we have something that might interest "våra Danska vänner"

Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information (http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=TryktAvis/TAvVis.php&pTAvVis=213404), on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm



Then we have a new physics professor.


INN World Report (http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i) interviewed Dr. Crockett Grabbe - professor of physics at the University of Iowa - regarding his thoughts on the 'collapses' of WTC1, WTC2, & WTC7. In this interview he lists numerous reasons to suspect controlled demolition and expresses support for alternative theories.

[beachnut]

Here we have something that might interest "våra Danska vänner"

Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information (http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=TryktAvis/TAvVis.php&pTAvVis=213404), on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm



Then we have a new physics professor.


INN World Report (http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i) interviewed Dr. Crockett Grabbe - professor of physics at the University of Iowa - regarding his thoughts on the 'collapses' of WTC1, WTC2, & WTC7. In this interview he lists numerous reasons to suspect controlled demolition and expresses support for alternative theories.

I still think you have not broke the 0.0067 percent of all engineers not being in the truth movement.

It makes the truth movement without real experts, just a few guys with no facts. List the facts these news guys have. It has been 5 years and you do not even have a story of what you think happened.

That guy from Iowa is not very good at physics, he makes many errors in his talk. INN should expost the fraud of 9/11 truth movement, then he would have a story.

[jhunter1163]

INN World Report (http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i) interviewed Dr. Crockett Grabbe - professor of physics at the University of Iowa - regarding his thoughts on the 'collapses' of WTC1, WTC2, & WTC7. In this interview he lists numerous reasons to suspect controlled demolition and expresses support for alternative theories.





I read that as Dr. Crotchett Grabbe. Made me spit my milk.

[pagan]

I read that as Dr. Crotchett Grabbe. Made me spit my milk.

Hehe, did you see the video? His looks and apperance match his name pretty good.

But, his credentials are good.

[pagan]

I still think you have not broke the 0.0067 percent of all engineers not being in the truth movement.

It makes the truth movement without real experts, just a few guys with no facts. List the facts these news guys have. It has been 5 years and you do not even have a story of what you think happened.

That guy from Iowa is not very good at physics, he makes many errors in his talk. INN should expost the fraud of 9/11 truth movement, then he would have a story.

As far as I am concerned you have zero names on your list sofar. You had Greening, but even that is questionable now?

[MRC_Hans]

Here we have something that might interest "våra Danska vänner"

Why do you try to write Swedish, then?


Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information (http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=TryktAvis/TAvVis.php&pTAvVis=213404), on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm


Well, we all have our crackpots. The English article just recaps all the old debunked crap.


ETA: Found a reprint of the Danis version. The translation is true to the original.



Hans

[WildCat]

Here we have something that might interest "våra Danska vänner"

Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information (http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=TryktAvis/TAvVis.php&pTAvVis=213404), on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm



Then we have a new physics professor.


INN World Report (http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i) interviewed Dr. Crockett Grabbe - professor of physics at the University of Iowa - regarding his thoughts on the 'collapses' of WTC1, WTC2, & WTC7. In this interview he lists numerous reasons to suspect controlled demolition and expresses support for alternative theories.
Still having trouble getting actual engineers on board, eh pagan?

[Disbelief]

Dear JREFers:

Thanks for all the helpful discussion of this topic, and I apologize if I have not answered everyone's individual questions/complaints. I really have more questions than answers myself....

My point is not to argue that insulation was not removed (sorry about the double negative!) by the aircraft impacts, but how NIST estimated it. I think the collapse itself was so violent that the fact that insulation appears to be stripped off steel sections in the rubble pile is not too helpful. And as for pictures of the state of the insulation inside the fire-affected zones of the towers, we have very little to go on there too. So we are forced to imagine what might have happened to the insulation in areas we cannot even see. NIST has a way of doing this that may be ok, but I believe is not very convincing.

What I am doing as an alternative approach is to turn the problem on its head and ask how hot did some areas of the fire-affected zones get, AND WHY? NIST has assumed conventional "fuels" were the only source of heat and are therefore stuck in the hydrocarbon flame temperature box. This limits the achievable air temperatures to about 1100 deg C (I think!). NIST realize this and even invoke the presence of "soffits" to trap more heat near the ceilings in case B -see NCSTAR 1-5F.

However, I am sure the actual temperatures were much higher than this because of chemical effects- and please, I AM NOTE SUGGESTING THERMITE, believe me. But if these chemical effects were present in and around the floor trusses, the need to strip so much insulation is obviated. This should actually make NIST happy!

Even if there were some chemical reactions that were unusual, would they all not point back to the big difference between this and other fires in steel-framed buildings - the airplanes? There were other fires in the towers that obviously had much less impact, so the new variable is the plane, its fuel and all the other components. Or, do you believe that there was something involved that could be present in a normal fire? If so, why have we never seen anything like it? Please, do not take these the questions like an attack, as I am truly curious about your opinion.

[rwguinn]

I don't really think this was called for, especially considering that up-thread you were commenting on "politeness". Perhaps you could put aside your bias against engineers as your contribution to a more polite atmosphere?
I thought I was polite in my response to him.
I'd also like to point out that issuing 6 significant figure answers with 3 significant figure data is pretty much useless, as well as being dishonest.

[FactCheck]

I love freedom of speech but it doesn't work if one side of a debate ignores the other. As with the creation issue, they will find more and more engineers who have nothing better to do with their time than play with the public. More and more of the public will begin putting pressure on its politicians to spend money on this BS because of a vacuum of alternative views. With all due respect to Gravy, there is only so much he can do.

[Apollo20]

Disbelief:

I would like to debate the question you posted (Post 136), but when I offer my opinions on this thread I usually receive posts like those from Rwguinn (Post 53), Chipmunkstew (Post 62), Tam (Post 65), Wildcat (Post 97)......

[Gravy]

Disbelief:

I would like to debate the question you posted (Post 136), but when I offer my opinions on this thread I usually receive posts like those from Rwguinn (Post 53), Chipmunkstew (Post 62), Tam (Post 65), Wildcat (Post 97)......It's not your opinions that spurs those responses, it's the supercilious attitude with which you present them. There's plenty of stimulating discussion available here if you can present your arguments without that chip on your shoulder.

[FactCheck]

"Can we all just get along?"

http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/Films/2001-Alcott3.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Disbelief:

I would like to debate the question you posted (Post 136), but when I offer my opinions on this thread I usually receive posts like those from Rwguinn (Post 53), Chipmunkstew (Post 62), Tam (Post 65), Wildcat (Post 97)......
Then may I respectfully suggest you reply to post 136; and ignore posts 53, 62, 65, and 97.

[Disbelief]

Disbelief:

I would like to debate the question you posted (Post 136), but when I offer my opinions on this thread I usually receive posts like those from Rwguinn (Post 53), Chipmunkstew (Post 62), Tam (Post 65), Wildcat (Post 97)......

Ignore them then. I think that if you present your ideas, you will get many useful responses. It could be worse, you could enter one of Lyte's threads. At least you have knowledge and experience on your side.

By the way, I am an engineer also, so we are not all bad.:D

[Apollo20]

Arkan Wolfshade:

I would like to focus on Post 136 but I need Gravy to justify his non-technical input to this debate since I see it is most definitely in the "ad hominem" category and question its veracity.

Gravy:

You say I have a "supercilious attitude".

Could you please explain this and offer some proof.

[rwguinn]

Disbelief:

I would like to debate the question you posted (Post 136), but when I offer my opinions on this thread I usually receive posts like those from Rwguinn (Post 53), Chipmunkstew (Post 62), Tam (Post 65), Wildcat (Post 97)......
Excuse for not adressing the issues brought up duly noted.

http://www.dodge.com/img/dodge_home_avenger.jpg


Removed hotlinked picture; please use url's for that.

[~enigma~]

By suggesting a group of structural and civil engineers, you are already framing the issue around your predetermined conclusion, i.e. that it was a building collapse.

Better would be to put together a diverse group of scientists, including structural engineers, but also including mechanical engineers, chemists like Apollo20, various physics sub-specialties like directed energy, nuclear, etc, and also explosives experts. They could then put pressure on the TV networks to release their high-quality footage, and NIST to release their evidence. That would be good for science and good for the truth.

You may like to pretend that most of the science community supports the official conspiracy theory, but in truth, most of them aren't talking. They certainly aren't answering quesitons.So like Columbia House you think silence means agreement?

ETA - last I checked silence meant silence. It is not a code for I believe woo.

[rwguinn]

Arkan Wolfshade:

I would like to focus on Post 136 but I need Gravy to justify his non-technical input to this debate since I see it is most definitely in the "ad hominem" category and question its veracity.

Gravy:

You say I have a "supercilious attitude".

Could you please explain this and offer some proof.

I'm getting a sniff of socks, here.
Apollo20, you keep offering hypotheses, but have yet to define any qualitative assesments. You seem to get distracted by what you term "ad hominem"--which are in reality questioning the validity and/or source of your assumptions and their application to the problem.
IT is typical troofer behavior to term disagreement with, and even the questioning of assumptions, as ad hom attacks. Let's see some hadr data and numbers, Doc.
Please?

[~enigma~]

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes.
Can you please tell me what the goals of the nIST report were. You can find them on the NIST's website.

[Apollo20]

RGuinn:

I posted this two days ago:

"As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B! What was the justification for doing that?"

The failure of anyone to answer is duly noted!

[Apollo20]

Hard Data?

"NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts."

This is hard data!

[~enigma~]

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to have vanished on the remaining, more or less intact trusses does not make it true.
Do you think you can step back and read that statement to yourself and just edit it to read:

Just because you WANT the thermal insulation to remain on the more or less intact trusses does not make it true

Maybe then you can see just a little bit that your argument is being unecessarily abrasive and kind of senseless. Since I am now having a bad experience with you - a fellow chemist, should I now claim that we all are a bunch of incompetant boobs?

[Apollo20]

More Hard Data (From NIST no-less):

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Uncertainty in the SFRM thickness was such that the uncertainty in the steel temperature was 20 % from this alone.

Now add the uncertainty from the thermo-physical properties of the materials in a truss assembly from things like the moisture content of the Blaze-shield...

Then add the uncertainty in the steel temperature due to the uncertainty in the heat release rate of 20 %...

Then look at Tables 12-9 and 12-10 and see variations of as much as 400 deg C in the predicted temperatures of a particular WTC 1 floor at a particular time.

[FactCheck]

RGuinn:

I posted this two days ago:

"As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B! What was the justification for doing that?"

The failure of anyone to answer is duly noted!Forgive me for not being an engineer but how is adding soffits (arbitrarily) different than adding chemicals (arbitrarily)?

[~enigma~]

Evolution is the same way yet scientists had to get on a list to counter the small amount of scientists who suggests it never happened.

They have the "scholars for 9/11 truth" because it fools people into believe there is some scientific validity to the idea the towers were blown up. I believe we need to counter that by showing they are in the minority. People are generally more lazy than stupid. If someone says Just look at all the scholars who believe towers were blown up!" you need someone else to say "Yeah but look at all the scholars who say it was the fires"... The argument is removed and no further actions by the fence sitter is needed.

I am well aware that NOTHING will stop them just as NOTHING will stop creationists. That doesn't mean we should rest on what we've already done. But this is just my homble opinion. :)
Pardon the derail but your post reminded me of something. One of the most vocal and in my opinion idiotic creationist was Kent Hovind. For 58 counts of tax evasion he was out in prison for 10 years. His son is filling his stupid shoes now. IOW, there is always somebody to continue as well as there will always be woo regarding 9/11...Now continue the thread :)

[Unfit4Command]

Come one everyone, this was just a friendly debate a few days ago.

If I've come across as a rude ass in a few posts, I apoligize, Apollo. :)

[Apollo20]

Where do I claim engineers are "incompetent boobs"?

Please show me!

And, by the way, my best friend is a mechanical engineer.

[~enigma~]

Hahaha, are you serious?

Do you really mean that you will find Independent civil Engineers or other academics who's not a part of or payed by the adm to support your silly conspiracy theory?

How many of those do we have on our side a couple of hundred? I will give you a lnk to the latest two.:)
How much did each paid off CE get? I mean i am looking for more cash so if it is enough money, I will go get another degree and be a CE. So how much??

[Apollo20]

Unfit4Command:

I don't recall you being rude; nor do I have any problems with 90 % of the posts on this thread. But apparently a few folks are very annoyed with my posts. It seems to be whenever I use the "E" word, or have the temerity to criticize the NIST Report.

[~enigma~]

It's not your opinions that spurs those responses, it's the supercilious attitude with which you present them. There's plenty of stimulating discussion available here if you can present your arguments without that chip on your shoulder.
Mine was surgically removed so can I take part in this thread?

[~enigma~]

Where do I claim engineers are "incompetent boobs"?

Please show me!

And, by the way, my best friend is a mechanical engineer.
Can you please answer my question from post # 148.

[Disbelief]

Unfit4Command:

I don't recall you being rude; nor do I have any problems with 90 % of the posts on this thread. But apparently a few folks are very annoyed with my posts. It seems to be whenever I use the "E" word, or have the temerity to criticize the NIST Report.

No, you said you had 25 bad years of experience with engineers. Since that is all the data you provided, along with what is known about your history, we assume taht you have a problem with engineers. Also, if you look back, there were a coupld of cnide comments about engineers. However, what does this have to do with your theories? In your first thread here, you came across very abrasive, but later on there was a very good debate/discussion about issues you brought up. If you let people here know what you are taking about instead of being so coy about your ideas, maybe you can get some constructive input.

[Apollo20]

Enigma:

Yes I know what the NIST Report's GOALS were. But what about the OBJECTIVES?

[rwguinn]

Forgive me for not being an engineer but how is adding soffits (arbitrarily) different than adding chemicals (arbitrarily)?
The first is done by engineers to make calculated results match observed reality.
The second done by a scientist because a comittment to reality is not a necessity for pure science.
That, BTW, is not a slam, but a bit of admiration in some ways. I have worked with NASA scientists many years, and am fully aware of the contributions "Wild-eyed " mad science has made to just about every facet of life.

[HyJinX]

Enigma:

Yes I know what the NIST Report's GOALS were. But what about the OBJECTIVES?

The word GOAL and the word OBJECTIVES mean the same thing. If you know the GOALS then you already know the OBJECTIVES.

OBJECTIVES:
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intention).

GOALS:
The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective. See Synonyms at intention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intention).

[~enigma~]

Enigma:

Yes I know what the NIST Report's GOALS were. But what about the OBJECTIVES?
So you disagree with their stated goals then say that. In your opinion did they meet their goals?

ETA - and if not why?

[beachnut]

Yes, never, ever mix up goals and objectives, your aim may be lost on a point, and your ideas will never be purposeful.

[~enigma~]

The word GOAL and the word OBJECTIVES mean the same thing. If you know the GOALS then you already know the OBJECTIVES.

OBJECTIVE:
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intention).

GOAL:
The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective. See Synonyms at intention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intention).
We know HyJinX but this isn't exactly a good time to "push" the matter. Wouldn't it be better to establish a dialouge first instead of a finger pointing session?

[rwguinn]

Enigma:

Yes I know what the NIST Report's GOALS were. But what about the OBJECTIVES?
Why can you not answer the question? Or any question, for that matter?
What were the goals? Mere assertion that you know is not acceptable here, as you should be well aware.

[beachnut]

Where do I claim engineers are "incompetent boobs"?

Please show me!

And, by the way, my best friend is a mechanical engineer.
I even have some Chem and Civil engineer friends; both are boobless.

[HyJinX]

I'm just making a clear statement that understanding goals is in fact understanding objectives. If Apollo feels that the two words mean different things...then I'd appreciate his definition of each in order to understand his stance on what NIST was striving for. You may know they mean the same...but it doesn't appear that Apollo does. I'm just curious as to what the difference is in his mind in order to understand his position.

[~enigma~]

I even have some Chem and Civil engineer friends; both are boobless.Speaking of boobs...
My lab partner from my physical chem class had...I am censoring my own post :)

[Apollo20]

Yes, I agree that in my dictionary "goals" and "objectives" have the same meaning. But I am simply going by the PREFACE to the NIST Report (page xxvii in my copy to be exact)

In this PREFACE we find GOALS and OBJECTIVES listed separately. Interestingly the GOALS appear to be engineering goals and the OBJECTIVES are more obviously scientific. So I guess NIST achieved it's engineering goals... but, ironically, failed on some scientific objectives?!?!

[rwguinn]

I'm just making a clear statement that understanding goals is in fact understanding objectives. If Apollo feels that the two words mean different things...then I'd appreciate his definition of each in order to understand his stance on what NIST was striving for. You may know they mean the same...but it doesn't appear that Apollo does. I'm just curious as to what the difference is in his mind in order to understand his position.

I believe the Dr. is using "Goal" as a final aiming point. Objectives are more immediate goals, as it were--as in "My goal is to run the NWO. My objectives are to ingratiate myself with Gravy and Oliver, and work my way up "

[~enigma~]

Yes, I agree that in my dictionary "goals" and "objectives" have the same meaning. But I am simply going by the PREFACE to the NIST Report (page xxvii in my copy to be exact)

In this PREFACE we find GOALS and OBJECTIVES listed separately. Interestingly the GOALS appear to be engineering goals and the OBJECTIVES are more obviously scientific. So I guess NIST achieved it's engineering goals... but, ironically, failed on some scientific objectives?!?!
So It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. was an unnecessary harsh and false statement. Would you agree. Your post now sure says differently. So critique the unmet (in your opinion) objectives but don't slander the entire report falsely.

[~enigma~]

I believe the Dr. is using "Goal" as a final aiming point. Objectives are more immediate goals, as it were--as in "My goal is to run the NWO. My objectives are to ingratiate myself with Gravy and Oliver, and work my way up "
You want to join the NWO you have to speak to me first since I am their Liaison :)

[beachnut]

Yes, I agree that in my dictionary "goals" and "objectives" have the same meaning. But I am simply going by the PREFACE to the NIST Report (page xxvii in my copy to be exact)

In this PREFACE we find GOALS and OBJECTIVES listed separately. Interestingly the GOALS appear to be engineering goals and the OBJECTIVES are more obviously scientific. So I guess NIST achieved it's engineering goals... but, ironically, failed on some scientific objectives?!?!
I got the wrong volume, my xxvii has acronyms and abbreviations, but NIST NCSTAR 1, on page xxix, has goals and objectives.

After careful review, what failures are you talking about?

[Gravy]

Arkan Wolfshade:

I would like to focus on Post 136 but I need Gravy to justify his non-technical input to this debate since I see it is most definitely in the "ad hominem" category and question its veracity.

Gravy:

You say I have a "supercilious attitude".

Could you please explain this and offer some proof.

Supercilious: behaving as though one thinks one is superior to others.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470688&postcount=10
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2472987&postcount=72
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2473283&postcount=86
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2474128#post2474128
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2492234&postcount=353
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2492350&postcount=382
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2495953#post2495953
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2496066#post2496066
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2522252#post2522252
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2548519#post2548519
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2554595#post2554595
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2556142&postcount=158

You're a smart person with plenty to offer. Why not just get on with it without the drama?

[FactCheck]

The first is done by engineers to make calculated results match observed reality.
The second done by a scientist because a comittment to reality is not a necessity for pure science.
That, BTW, is not a slam, but a bit of admiration in some ways. I have worked with NASA scientists many years, and am fully aware of the contributions "Wild-eyed " mad science has made to just about every facet of life.Thanks, I appreciate the illumination. :)

The question I ask is more on the addition part. The problem he has with the NIST report is ADDING the soffits which there is no evidence for. He attempts to correct the problem by ADDING chemicals which there is also no evidence for. At least not any presented thus far. There may be differnet fields of science adding things for different reasons but they are both adding things, are they not?

[Apollo20]

FactCheck:

I am not "adding" chemicals - they were already there!

[rwguinn]

Thanks, I appreciate the illumination. :)

The question I ask is more on the addition part. The problem he has with the NIST report is ADDING the soffits which there is no evidence for. He attempts to correct the problem by ADDING chemicals which there is also no evidence for. At least not any presented thus far. There may be differnet fields of science adding things for different reasons but they are both adding things, are they not?
Er--the lack of commitment as not a slam, but I fear I failed to let my indignation at the arrogance of a particular scientist show through.
The chemicals are added because he can. The soffits are added because they help correct the ceiling models toward reality.
There is eviddence of ceilings in the building. The evidence that I can see for some exotic chemical reaction is simply that Apollo20 wants there to be, and/or he doesn't understand complicated structural modeling problems/assumptions/solutions, and feels that anything an engineer does to correct the math is an improper case of CYA.
Modeling is not perfect--that is why it is called Finite Element Modeling, instead of Continuous System Modeling.
Sometimes, because of physical realities of fastening, joining, and tolerance build-up, a 6 Inch Diameter beam acts like it is a 3 inch x 4 inch oval. Good Modeling Practices allow you to account for that by actually changing the math model to meet reality.

[FactCheck]

FactCheck:

I am not "adding" chemicals - they were already there!Did I miss where you poved this?

[T.A.M.]

Pagan:


Gumboot:
1. Bachelor of Performing and Screen Arts (BPSA) majoring in Film and Television, with specialisations in Production and Cinematography.

Stateofgrace:
1. BSc Mechanical and Electrical Engineering.
2. 9 years in UK Royal Navy as an electrical engineer.
3. 12 years as offshore engineer, working on hydraulic and high voltage systems.

Architect:
1. Bachelor of Science (Upper Second Division) in Architectural Studies, with elective subjects including structural engineering.
2. postgraduate Bachelor of Architecture.
3. passed my RIBA Part III test of professional competence in 1993, following my second year of practical experience, and therefore have been working in the field for a good 15 years now.
4. on the UK ARB (Architects Registration Board) Register and am a chartered member of the Royal institute of British Architects (RIBA).
5. Until a couple of months ago, I worked for Ian Simpson Architects on a variety of tall buildings projects, including the Beetham Tower in Manchester, and now work for another leading practice also specialising in tall buildings/commercial work.
6. From 1993 to 1995 I was a civil servant (gasp horror) working on improving fire resistance, etc. on existing buildings in state care following the Windsor fire.

Lurker:
1. BS Mechanical Engineering
2. MS Mechanical Engineering
3. Study of stress/strain, Finite Element Analysis modeling, viscoelasticity.

Horatius:
1. Masters in Physics
2. Work in the patent office, so I can track down any devices that might have been used in any CT.

H’ethetheth:
1. Aerospace engineering student, working on my MSc thesis.

Anti-Sophist:
1. BS Electrical Engineering
2. BS Computer Engineering
3. MS Electrical & Computer Engineering (Robotics, Computer Vision, Digital Signal Processing)
4. Worked for the USAF doing instrumentation and data acquisition.
5. Work for a startup research company in Pittsburgh doing computer vision.

Apathoid:
1. Avionics technician for a major airline; worked 767 overhaul for 3 years.
2. FAA Airframe and Powerplant License
3. FCC General Radiotelephone Operators License w/ Radar Endorsement
4. A.O.S., Advanced Electronics Technology
5. 767 Airframe/Systems/Avionics School (767 Autopilot/Autoland qualified)
6. Military Intelligence Corps;
7. Electronic Warfare Technician, US Army (Top Secret/SCI Security Clearance)

Aggle-rithm:
1. AAS, Computer Information Systems
2. BS, Computer Science.

Loss Leader:
1. Masters of Public Administration and a lawyer.

JohhnyFive:
1. BS in Police Science (in the US)
2. Study of terrorist ideology and methodology.
3. BSc Mathematics (in progress)
4. Insurance Underwriter

Mercutio:
1. PhD Experimental (Social) Psychology
2. Coursework in everything from visual perception to historiography to behaviorism.
3. Areas of expertise include experimental design in social cognition (e.g., how to guard against confirmation bias), visual perception (including visual illusions), eyewitness reliability (and known influences on reliability)...

The Almond:
1. Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Clemson University
2. Masters of Science, Reinforced Concrete Design and Construction Materials, Clemson University

Rwguinn:
1. BS Mechanical Engineering
2. Registered Professional Engineer (by examiation--NSPE national Exam)
30 years structural analysis
Principal interests: Structural Dynamics and loads.

TheGrunion:
1. BS Civil Engineering, Bucknell University
2. Registered Professional Engineer
3. professional expertise primarily is in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of highways and roadways. I have some site security expertise as well.
4. working for a consultant engineering firm (and a couple of years as a VDOT employee). I have managed projects for VDOT, DoD, FEMA, etc.
5. worked at the Pentagon from October 2001 until mid 2005, and was responsible for pretty much all of the exterior construction that took place there from 2002-2004.

60hzxtl:
1. film maker. I make documentary films for a living and have the awards to prove it. I've been employed by Nova, Frontine, National Geographic, Discovery, BBC, ARD, the 3 major US networks.

Kiwiwriter:
1. Member of the City of Newark's Homeland Security and Emergency Operations Management and Planning Committees.

VespaGuy:
1. 5+ years experience as a structural designer for engineered building components. I worked primarily with wood trusses (floor and roof), but I also designed steel trusses, sized steel columns and beams, sized and specified engineered lumber products, hangers, nails, screws and just about any other peice of material you can think of in the building industry. I have done full
engineering design on structures that range from small houses to multi-level elderly retirement complexes. I worked under a P.E. and all of my calcs were verified and sealed.

Pvt1863:
1. BS Mechanical Engineering
2. MS Nuclear Engineering, specializing in thermal hydraulics (not completely done -- finishing my thesis while working)
3. Less than 4 months work experience in nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics.
4. Expertise is in heat transfer. I focused on it during my undergraduate schooling and was a TA for my undergraduate school's heat transfer course. My Master's thesis also focuses on heat transfer.
5. Well versed in statics, dynamics, and material science. I did undergraduate research in materials, finding the material properties of new alloys.

HyJinX:
1. MBA with an emphasis in Marketing and Consumer Behavior.

Minadin:
1. Bachelor of Architecture (that's the 5-year degree). I work as an architectural assosciate under a liscensed architect and architectural engineer.

Crungy:
1. BS in mechanical engineering. I work in HVAC design for an A/E firm. I've worked with many clients, but my main areas of expertise are in health care and telecommunications, but lately I've been working in oil refineries, water treatment and a big honkin' high rise.

Mr. Skinny:
1. Bachelors degree Mechanical Engineering
2. Former fire protection engineer for an insurance mutual Licensed Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector (Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky)
3. Safety Engineer for a government research laboratory (last 23 years)

EvilBiker:
1. Higher Diploma in Electronic Engineering
2. BS (Hons) in Electrical Engineering
3. Expertise: RF design (mainly for electronic warfare)

Beachnut:
1. Electrical and Computer Engineer, BSEE
2. Electrical Engineer, MSEE
3. Air Force Pilot (UPT T-37, T-38)
4. Airline Transport Pilot rating type B-707 B-720
5. KC-135A/Q Pilot/Aircraft Commander/Instructor
6. USAF retired (28 years)

MG1962:
1. Experience with Building Materials

Hutch:
1. Military Helicopter Sales

Firestone:
1. Mathematics and Software studies

JamesB:
1. BA in Russian and East European studies
2. MBA candidate with a concentration in finance

Solidslade:
1. Military - Explosives Personel
2. working on Computer Science Degree

Arkan Wolfshade:
1. 12 credits shy of BS in Computer science
2. 10 years working in IT (sysadmin/developer)

Hamradioguy:
1. Retired Health Physicist (radiological accident response and assesment)
2. Post-graduate coursework through the University of Lowell (MA)
3. "field of speciality" is firefighting: 42 years of firefighting experience, and have served as Chief of two departments and Training Officer for three departments.

Foolmewunz:
1. Logistics Expert
2. Witness to 2nd crash into WTCs.

Huntsman:
1. Military Personel (14 years exp. comp sys operator with special security clearance)
2. Military Medic
3. AAS in Comp. Sys Tech.
4. BSc IT
5. Combat Engineer (explosives, heavy equipment)
5. College courses in Elect. Engineering, Comp Sci, Physics.


Brainster:
1. Spreadsheet Analyst with 28 years exp in comm. Real estate field.

JimBenArm:
1. Nuclear Trained Electrician (Navy) - 14years
2. Instrument Tech.
3. Communications "A" School Instructor.

Dave_46:
1. Higher National Certificate in Mechanical Engineering.
2. 19 years in Fire-Resistance Testing.
3. 15 years working in Building Research Establishment

Belz:
1. Computer Programmer

firecoins:
1. BA Economics (NYU)
2. EMT (With Mass Casualty experience)

Arus808:
1. Web Designer
2. video Game Programmer/Designer

ConspiRaider:
1. Software Engineer
2. Screenwriter

Triangleman:
1. Insurance Accountant

njslim:
1. BSc Computer Systems
2. BA Liberal Arts
3. 20 years in Fire Service

8den:
1. BA film production/operations
2. Assistant film editor

progressquest:
1. Computer Engineer

Boloboffin:
1. BA Bible studies
2. 2 years Graduate training - Christian Theology

MikeW:
1. PhD Software Engineering
2. Freelance writer

NickUK:
1. BA (hon) Politics

Doubt:
1. Combat Engineer
2. Associates Degree - Electronics
3. BSET - Engineering Technology

tsig:
1. ASEE
2. ASME
3. BSET
4. BSS
5. Retired Electrician

StoneWT:
1. Radio Operator - Marines

Brainache:
1. sound recordist, camera operator, floor manager, vision switcher and director
2. News Director SBS TV (2000-2004)

Calcas:
1. ATC for both the FAA (4 years) and the USAF (4 years)

Retrograde:
1. BSc - Chemistry
2. Quality assurance and Programming Experience

A_W_Smith:
1. Construction Contractor - 21 years

Pardalis:
1. Storyboard artist/illustrator

Ref:
1. International Banking

Wartac:
1. Explosive Ordinance Disposal - US Army
2. BSc - Plastics Engineering

stilicho:
1. CMA (Accountant)
2. History/Philosophy major

Dave Rogers:
1. PhD - Physics 20+ years expeience in semiconductors/photonics

The Silver Shadow:
1. Biology major/Cultural Anthropology minor - UoT

Blackadder_no:
1. MSc Aerospace Engineering
2. Bsc - Astrophysics (in progress)

Phantomwolf:
1. BSc - Chemistry/Comp Sci.

Mr.D:
1. BSc - Physics
2. Msc - Physics
3. PhD - Physics (in progress)

Chippy:
1. Bsc - Mechanical Engineering

DavidJames:
1. Senior Project Manager - Comp Services

Pomeroo:
1. TV Talk Show Host

T.A.M.:
1. Electronic Engineering Technology (3 year) Diploma
2. BSc Med Science
3. MD (Doctorate Medicine)
4. CFPC (College of Family Physicians of Canada)

LashL:
1. Lawyer/Civil Litigator

unsecured Coins:
1. 13 years US Army
2. Tank Commander
3. Sniper

Hokulele:
1. BA Astrophysics (in progress)
2. 3 years computer programming
3. Construction Surveyor (7 years) with mapping and project management

jhunter1163:
1. 15 years in Insurance Industry

Nick Terry:
1. BA (Hons) History - Uni London
2. PhD History - Uni London
3. Journalism Editing/publishing - 8 years
4. Teacher - 4 years

Disbelief:
1. BS Electronic Engineering
2. MSc Manufacturing Op.
3. C-130 Comm/Nav at Pope AFB
4. 11 years manufacturing Engineering work

Netwons Bit:
1. Bsc Civil Engineering (with 15 credits Structural at masters level)
2. Architectural Engineering Work (presently)

slyjoe:
1. BSc Elect Engineering
2. 26+ years with NASA/DOD/DSA/NRO in Communications field

Hellaeon:
1. 7 Years in IT (4 programming, 3 as sys admin)

kookbreaker:
1. BA - Physics (optics)

Chipmunk Stew:
1. Mechanical Designer
2. Computer Science Student

Peter Weaver:
1. Btec Civil Engineering (mettalurgy and welding courses included)

Gorgnian:
1. BA Music Education

Myriad:
1. BA Computer Science
2. Developed one of the first cellular 3-D computer models of fire propagation
3. Lab technician
4. Computer game designer / Software developer


So now pagan, why don't you bring back the list from 9/11blogger or LC Forum, and we will compare.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

You rarely answer my posts, the odd time when they include a question for you, so I feel almost honored to be mentioned in your list of undesired replies above.

I make comment such as that, only when one has exhibited behaviour, through the tone and/or language in their posts, that deserve it. If someone comes to this forum without agenda, asking honest questions, or presenting facts, or developing a neutral discussion on matters, you will not see me post as such.

Nutshell: You get what you give, and you sir, in many of your posts here, have given vitriol, contempt, even at times a little arrogance, and for sure, a bitterness for the engineering community.

Start from scratch, and you will find most people here will be very forgetting.

by the way, I have also complemented you when your posts have been civil (as you will find above earlier in this thread).

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Gravy/Tam:

No one is perfect!

[T.A.M.]

Gravy/Tam:

No one is perfect!

That is true...100%

I will often have contempt, and occasionally arrogance in my posts...no doubt, but I believe, that in most if not all cases, there is provocation, often from an obnoxious nonsensical "truther" posting the same, tired "theories" based in absolutely no facts.

Now if we here at JREF have provoked you, once you arrived, than your case to "lash out" in reply maybe warranted, but at some point, I think all this bickering, and inuendo, and general abhorant tone, has to stop, or else it is kind of pointless for you to post here, and for us to reply...it is getting nothing accomplished.

There are some very smart people here, and combined energies could be of some benefit.


That said, everyone, please take a moment to consider a return to civility, if for nothing more, than to give the mods less headaches.

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

Don't make me take everyone's tassels away! :P

* FactCheck attempts to break the tension with dry humor...

[Apollo20]

If you look at the "meat" of my posts on this thread you will find a detailed critique of the NIST Report's account of the loss of thermal insulation.
No one has really addressed the points I have raised on this topic; points I might add that are based on NIST's own words. No one has provided any CALCULATIONS to support NIST's conjectures on the loss of insulation from, and the temperatures attained by the trusses. No one has talked about Table 12-9 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Table 5-5 in NCSTAR 1-5F; or Section 2.3.4 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Figure E-31 in NCSTAR 1-2; or Figure 5-9 in NCSTAR 1-6; or Section 5.2.3 in NCSTAR 1-6....... In fact I get the feeling that some posters haven't read the appropriate sections of the NIST Report at all, yet still accept it as gospel. (Same way most "Christians" haven't read the New Testament and most "Evolutionists" haven't read The Origin of Species.)

So instead of debating these issues, guys like Gravy choose to assemble a list of my "sins and transgressions", my perceived "contempt", my "arrogance', my "superciliousness" and make them the topic of the day. Well, nice way to avoid the subject. And, as for my alleged jibes at engineers, well, sorry I hurt any engineer's feelings...

Debate! What debate?

[~enigma~]

If you look at the "meat" of my posts on this thread you will find a detailed critique of the NIST Report's account of the loss of thermal insulation.
No one has really addressed the points I have raised on this topic; points I might add that are based on NIST's own words. No one has provided any CALCULATIONS to support NIST's conjectures on the loss of insulation from, and the temperatures attained by the trusses. No one has talked about Table 12-9 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Table 5-5 in NCSTAR 1-5F; or Section 2.3.4 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Figure E-31 in NCSTAR 1-2; or Figure 5-9 in NCSTAR 1-6; or Section 5.2.3 in NCSTAR 1-6....... In fact I get the feeling that some posters haven't read the appropriate sections of the NIST Report at all, yet still accept it as gospel. (Same way most "Christians" haven't read the New Testament and most "Evolutionists" haven't read The Origin of Species.)

So instead of debating these issues, guys like Gravy choose to assemble a list of my "sins and transgressions", my perceived "contempt", my "arrogance', my "superciliousness" and make them the topic of the day. Well, nice way to avoid the subject. And, as for my alleged jibes at engineers, well, sorry I hurt any engineer's feelings...

Debate! What debate?Because you attempt to make an argument out of thin air and nobody is interested but some point out your mistakes you think a hissy fit will help your case? Explain what makes you think that please.

[OMGturt1es]

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.


i don't know how well this has been addressed in further postings, and i don't have time to find out, so i apologize if this post simply repeats that which has been posted ten times over already.

“There was extensive photographic evidence of SFRM damage around the impact hole on the north face of WTC 1. This was not surprising considering the energy of the impact. However, some of the damage was a considerable distance from the impact site” (NIST NISTCAR 1-3 WTC Investigation, Damage and Failure Analysis of Structural Steel, Page 49, http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf, emphasis mine)

“E.3.4 Damage to Fireproofing Due to Aircraft Impact
Pre-collapse photographs indicated that, as expected, fire-proofing was removed from pieces struck by the incoming aircraft or debris exiting the far side of the buildings. In addition, the impact caused fireproofing and aluminum facade panels to spall off many perimeter columns which were not directly struck nor severed, but apparently suffered strong accelerations and forces otherwise transmitted through the structure. This indirect damage to the spray-applied fire resistant material (SFRM) was observed on the north and east faces of WTC 2.”
(http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf, emphasis mine)

================================================== =

i'm not going to claim to be intimately familiar with NIST's work, nor will i claim to have even read the entire sections from which i've pulled these quotes. the fact is that dislodged fire proofing was observed, and there is an apparent photographic record illustrating such. while tests in the lab may or may not have yielded such results, we know the fire proofing was damaged. it's just difficult to simulate a plane crashing into a building.

NOW, that raises some very interesting questions that i wish could be given more research! are there any other forms of fire proofing that would have held up better to the impact? would the towers have lasted longer had chrysotile been used at the impact zone?

i'd love to see more research conducted on the fire proofing, and the intergranular, eutectic melts that FEMA documented.

but, i'd love to see more research conducted on a number of things. probably isn't going to happen.

NIST's work isn't perfect, but i'm certainly thankful that it's been published.

[FactCheck]

Did I miss where you poved this?The chemicals being there I mean. If not you are only doing what you argue others here are, aren't you?

I know you proved the NIST is putting in soffits. The argument is they are doing it to account for the reality of the evidence. (Photos and such) And it is still within reason to insert them since average buildings have soffits. Where is the reality of your evidence? Where is the proof of chemicals. You seem to be trying to prove the existance of chemicals because the NIST inserted soffits into the equation. That's what I get from it. As I said, if I missed something please point it out.

Vacuums of information push people into inventing answers. Be they soffits or chemicals, or 9/11.

[~enigma~]

I don't get it. You acknowledge that the NIST report met it's goals yet you still call it a feel good report? Is that the state of science in your opinion Apollo20? Please explain that because if you really are Frank Greening I find it hard to believe you are now encroaching woo by claiming that although NIST met their stated goals, it was a feel-good report concerned with the codes. If you have issues with the methods the NIST used say that...is that wrong to ask?

[beachnut]

If you look at the "meat" of my posts on this thread you will find a detailed critique of the NIST Report's account of the loss of thermal insulation.
No one has really addressed the points I have raised on this topic; points I might add that are based on NIST's own words. No one has provided any CALCULATIONS to support NIST's conjectures on the loss of insulation from, and the temperatures attained by the trusses. No one has talked about Table 12-9 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Table 5-5 in NCSTAR 1-5F; or Section 2.3.4 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Figure E-31 in NCSTAR 1-2; or Figure 5-9 in NCSTAR 1-6; or Section 5.2.3 in NCSTAR 1-6....... In fact I get the feeling that some posters haven't read the appropriate sections of the NIST Report at all, yet still accept it as gospel. (Same way most "Christians" haven't read the New Testament and most "Evolutionists" haven't read The Origin of Species.)

So instead of debating these issues, guys like Gravy choose to assemble a list of my "sins and transgressions", my perceived "contempt", my "arrogance', my "superciliousness" and make them the topic of the day. Well, nice way to avoid the subject. And, as for my alleged jibes at engineers, well, sorry I hurt any engineer's feelings...

Debate! What debate?
You raised some points but did not seem to present facts, or your own position. Instead the way you presented the points seems to confirm Gravy's post you just posted about.

The insulation, what is your point. Do you think the aircraft did not dislodge and destroy enough insulation in the areas where the aircraft impacted. How much of the 1.5 inch wall board on the core columns survived the impact? What do you think? And if you think the insulation was not as damaged as modeled, do you think the aircraft actually damaged more of the WTC than modeled and believed? What if they failed to model the damage to the floors/core/shell properly and that damage to the floors connecting to the core and shell was actually more involved in the collapse. Was the uniqueness of the WTC, the core/floors/shell unit, not modeled properly with respect to impact, insulation destruction, and heating?

Do you disagree with the findings? I like my 2001 ideas. Impact, fires, failure. Steel fails in fires and without insulation if fails in a very short time. Why do I need NIST? Why do you or I have to waste time on this stuff? What is the chemical stuff?

It seems true we could argue the NIST stuff forever. Anyone who has worked on a team knows this, but where is your list of failures of the NIST report.

[FactCheck]

I know the NIST has called for the creation of new fireproofing. One that clings to the steel better. They also said cores should be covered in concrete because it is less likely to collapse. I think this is a mistake. The steel in the whole building should be covered in concrete. They are just thinking of saving the people in the building. What about the people and property on the street below the building?

If they can't make the building tall then so what. Build your phallic symbol elsewhere.

[~enigma~]

You raised some points but did not seem to present facts, or your own position. Instead the way you presented the points seems to confirm Gravy's post you just posted about.

The insulation, what is your point. Do you think the aircraft did not dislodge and destroy enough insulation in the areas where the aircraft impacted. How much of the 1.5 inch wall board on the core columns survived the impact? What do you think? And if you think the insulation was not as damaged as modeled, do you think the aircraft actually damaged more of the WTC than modeled and believed? What if they failed to model the damage to the floors/core/shell properly and that damage to the floors connecting to the core and shell was actually more involved in the collapse. Was the uniqueness of the WTC, the core/floors/shell unit, not modeled properly with respect to impact, insulation destruction, and heating?

Do you disagree with the findings? I like my 2001 ideas. Impact, fires, failure. Steel fails in fires and without insulation if fails in a very short time. Why do I need NIST? Why do you or I have to waste time on this stuff? What is the chemical stuff?

It seems true we could argue the NIST stuff forever. Anyone who has worked on a team knows this, but where is your list of failures of the NIST report.
Haven't we seen enough squirming out of corners to know not to expect straight answers?

[T.A.M.]

Build your phallic symbol elsewhere.

lol..better watch it or Lyte Trip will be over here telling you you are "fantasizing' about such things...(See Lyte Trip's Recent Lloyd England thread)

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

One more NIST quote:

NCSTAR 1-5G, page 91: "It should be noted that there is a wide variation of time-temperature curves that hold at different points in the structure and that these curves DO NOT resemble those from a standard time-temperature curve used in furnace tests."

So it is good to see NIST spelling out this kind of discrepancy!

Anyway, here's my "chemical" point:

The WTC was built BEFORE computers took over the typical NYC office space and the building infrastructure had to adapt to accommodate "the electronic age". A wide variety of new gadgets such as mainframes, disc drives, tabletop PCs, printers, FAX machines, etc, were installed in the 1980s and 90s requiring more and more power lines and phone/telecommunication cabling, etc. All of these gadgets had to be "hardwired". Think how much extra wiring was installed in the Twin Towers after it was built. Think of all the PVC-coated COPPER in the flooring or plenum spaces. Think of all the galvanized steel ductwork, conduit, cable "raceways"....

COPPER + ZINC + PVC + FIRES = HYDROGEN + HYDROCHLORIC ACID + CHLORINE + MOLTEN METAL CHLORIDES + ZINC EMBRITTLEMENT OF STEEL

[~enigma~]

One more NIST quote:

NCSTAR 1-5G, page 91: "It should be noted that there is a wide variation of time-temperature curves that hold at different points in the structure and that these curves DO NOT resemble those from a standard time-temperature curve used in furnace tests."

So it is good to see NIST spelling out this kind of discrepancy!

Anyway, here's my "chemical" point:

The WTC was built BEFORE computers took over the typical NYC office space and the building infrastructure had to adapt to accommodate "the electronic age". A wide variety of new gadgets such as mainframes, disc drives, tabletop PCs, printers, FAX machines, etc, were installed in the 1980s and 90s requiring more and more power lines and phone/telecommunication cabling, etc. All of these gadgets had to be "hardwired". Think how much extra wiring was installed in the Twin Towers after it was built. Think of all the PVC-coated COPPER in the flooring or plenum spaces. Think of all the galvanized steel ductwork, conduit, cable "raceways"....

COPPER + ZINC + PVC + FIRES = HYDROGEN + HYDROCHLORIC ACID + CHLORINE + MOLTEN METAL CHLORIDES + ZINC EMBRITTLEMENT OF STEELOk...explain this to me slowly. Where did the NIST specifically say there was no possibility of anything like this taking place? I mean isn't this akin to saying there are chemical reactions during a fire in a paint factory? This is your problem?????????????????

[Disbelief]

One more NIST quote:

NCSTAR 1-5G, page 91: "It should be noted that there is a wide variation of time-temperature curves that hold at different points in the structure and that these curves DO NOT resemble those from a standard time-temperature curve used in furnace tests."

So it is good to see NIST spelling out this kind of discrepancy!

Anyway, here's my "chemical" point:

The WTC was built BEFORE computers took over the typical NYC office space and the building infrastructure had to adapt to accommodate "the electronic age". A wide variety of new gadgets such as mainframes, disc drives, tabletop PCs, printers, FAX machines, etc, were installed in the 1980s and 90s requiring more and more power lines and phone/telecommunication cabling, etc. All of these gadgets had to be "hardwired". Think how much extra wiring was installed in the Twin Towers after it was built. Think of all the PVC-coated COPPER in the flooring or plenum spaces. Think of all the galvanized steel ductwork, conduit, cable "raceways"....

COPPER + ZINC + PVC + FIRES = HYDROGEN + HYDROCHLORIC ACID + CHLORINE + MOLTEN METAL CHLORIDES + ZINC EMBRITTLEMENT OF STEEL

But, does the steel still have to have the fireproofing knocked off in sufficient quantities or will the chemical reaction eat through it?

[Apollo20]

The chemical reactions also include:

ZINC + CONCRETE (ALKALINE CEMENT PASTE) = CALCIUMHYDROXYZINCATE + HYDROGEN

The zinc coated floor pans were in direct contact with the floor concrete.

[~enigma~]

The chemical reactions also include:

ZINC + CONCRETE (ALKALINE CEMENT PASTE) = CALCIUMHYDROXYZINCATE + HYDROGEN

The zinc coated floor pans were in direct contact with the floor concrete.
Can you please answer post #197. i honestly do not understand what your problem is here.

[Apollo20]

Zinc and steel are also incompatible with GYPSUM/GYPSUM MORTAR at high temperatures in high humidity environments. Galvanized steel essentially crumbles to rust under these conditions.

[Apollo20]

NIST DO NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY AS FAR AS I KNOW...

If NIST has something to say on this could you please show me where.

[rwguinn]

NIST DO NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY AS FAR AS I KNOW...

If NIST has something to say on this could you please show me where.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
I'm going to accept your word on this, till I can look it up. But a question for you on this.
The critical temperature for water is about 375 C. Since we can assume no significant pressure, due to lack of a containment vessel, I am curious as to how you presume the high-humidity environment when temperatures reach much over about 500C?
Since 500C is where steel starts becoming pretty well plastic, would the corrosive effects be more significant than the thermal situation? Keep in mind that the vertical support columns and trusswork are not significantly in contact with concrete on this structure. I would think that the corrosion would be religated to a secondary effect.
Also, what are the effects of elevated temperature on concrete? I would think that spalling would help in rubblizing (is that a word? Oh, well, I think you get the idea, anyway) the concrete, but would would not have a primary effect on the collapse.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Gravy]

So instead of debating these issues, guys like Gravy choose to assemble a list of my "sins and transgressions", my perceived "contempt", my "arrogance', my "superciliousness" and make them the topic of the day.False. You took umbrage at the posts of others. I suggested that they were a reaction to your behavior. You asked for evidence of said behavior. I linked to posts where I think you displayed such behavior.

I don't seem to be alone in thinking that you've gotten off to an unfortunate start here. If you can rein in the drama, I think you'll find a bunch of people here who are interested in discussing your ideas. Just my two bits.

[Apollo20]

DISBELIEF:

Another point to consider is the so-called DELTA H for the reactions involved. There was the heat from the combustion/pyrolysis of about 3 tonnes of PVC per floor. There was also the heat from the reaction of hydrochloric acid gas with about 2 tonnes of zinc per floor. The heat released from just these two sources more than doubles the heat released from hydrocarbon/cellulosics combustion alone.

[Apollo20]

GRAVY:

Thank you for that input, your behavior is duly noted too.

[~enigma~]

NIST DO NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY AS FAR AS I KNOW...

If NIST has something to say on this could you please show me where.
And where is this discussed in the goals of the NIST report?

Frankly (no pun intended) your position looks like it is driven by nothing more than jealousy that you were not asked to take part in the NIST report. Is that it? Did you feel slighted so now your aim is to prove them wrong on something they didn't even address??????? What happened to science Apollo20?

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

There was plenty of water from the conversion of GYPSUM (the di-hydrate of calcium sulfate) to ANHYDRITE. (Sorry more chemistry!)

[Apollo20]

ENIGMA:

I could not be a participant in the NIST study, I am not an American citizen, nor do I possess a "green card".

[rwguinn]

GRAVY:

Thank you for that input, your behavior is duly noted too.
Why is it that when asked a question on your hypothosis, you answer by addressing all the percieved slights you think you have been subject to?
Want to address the humidity question, sir? You have posted 2 times since I asked the questions, all of them long enoug after to have replied.
Edited--make that 3 times

[~enigma~]

ENIGMA:

I could not be a participant in the NIST study, I am not an American citizen, nor do I possess a "green card".
Then - and I mean this with the utmost respect - why are you acting like a jilted lover?

ETA - why the urgency to prove the NIST report wrong on an issue they didn't address?

[Apollo20]

I HAVE addressed the moisture question. GYPSUM > ANHYDRITE. (Look it up!) Then there is always the water-gas shift reaction.... CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O

[Apollo20]

It always amazes me that some engineers think that H2O ceases to exist above the critical temperature!

[twinstead]

It always amazes me that some engineers think that H2O ceases to exist above the critical temperature!

Well, that may be true, but certainly my beer does cease to exist after a critical temperature..

Oh wait. I suppose it doesn't. Never mind.

[Apollo20]

This little item is taken from a National Insulation Association article on INDUSTRIAL INSULATION JACKETING:

"When FIRE is concerned, the outermost covering or "jacket" will often be stainless steel. Other jacket materials such as galvanized steel can be used in the same way as stainless steel; however, the ZINC COATING ON GALVANIZED STEEL WILL MOST LIKELY MELT IN A FIRE AND POSE A RISK OF LIQUID METAL EMBRITTLEMENT...."

[~enigma~]

It always amazes me that some engineers think that H2O ceases to exist above the critical temperature!
What do you expect from a physicist but that is not true by a long way. Go ask 100 engineers and I'll bet their answers surprise you...so really, do you think by having a hissy fit and trying to prove NIST wrong over an issue they didn't address is supposed to give science any credibility or is it going to perpetuate the stereotype of a bitter old mad scientist in a lab coat?

[rwguinn]

I HAVE addressed the moisture question. GYPSUM > ANHYDRITE. (Look it up!) Then there is always the water-gas shift reaction.... CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O

And my questions were how do you explain a high-humidity environment when there can be no free water molecules around, and why do you consider this a primary effect? Why would this effect be greater than the fire itseld heating the steel in excess of 500 degrees?
High temperature studies for conceret (the ones I have found so far) do not address temperatures in excess of about 150 degrees C, and it all I have found so far is that it gets weaker (a surprise, that!). All the graphs essentially die at somewhere around 300C
And while I do not doubt that the heat released from the anhydrous process is large, what temperature difference can we expect? AS I recall from my long-ago days of heat transfer class, the "Heat flow" is from high to low temperature. All the heat in the world will not cause a temperature rise above the source temperature.

ETA.
I am not saying that water molecules do not exist, simply that they are so energetic that they don't stick around.

[~enigma~]

the "Heat flow" is from high to low temperature. All the heat in the world will not cause a temperature rise above the source temperature.This really grated on me for a moment. Tecnically, you are absolutly correct in a PASSIVE enviornment heat will "flow" from hot to cold but heat can flow from cold to hot but it of course has a cost in energy and entropy (get thee behind me perpetual motion)...now continue, my rant is over :)

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Have you shared your thoughts/theory/hypothesis with any of the NIST scientists? If so, did they give you any feedback?

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Apollo20:

Have you shared your thoughts/theory/hypothesis with any of the NIST scientists? If so, did they give you any feedback?

TAM:)
GOOD QUESTION!!!!

[rwguinn]

This really grated on me for a moment. Tecnically, you are absolutly correct in a PASSIVE enviornment heat will "flow" from hot to cold but heat can flow from cold to hot but it of course has a cost in energy and entropy (get thee behind me perpetual motion)...now continue, my rant is over :):D
Well, I just kind of assumed (that da%n word) that there was little negative entropy available at the WTC on that day. The NWO was supposed to have it locked up.

[rwguinn]

This little item is taken from a National Insulation Association article on INDUSTRIAL INSULATION JACKETING:

"When FIRE is concerned, the outermost covering or "jacket" will often be stainless steel. Other jacket materials such as galvanized steel can be used in the same way as stainless steel; however, the ZINC COATING ON GALVANIZED STEEL WILL MOST LIKELY MELT IN A FIRE AND POSE A RISK OF LIQUID METAL EMBRITTLEMENT...."
In the steel examined by the review, the same review that failed to find any sign of explosives, was any zinc embrittlement seen?
Nice move on the goalposts, BTW.

[Gravy]

Apollo20:

Have you shared your thoughts/theory/hypothesis with any of the NIST scientists? If so, did they give you any feedback?

TAM:)In his first thread I believe he said he had spoken to some and written to NIST but hadn't heard back. I don't know if that was in relation to these theories.

[T.A.M.]

It would be nice to know. My question is an honest one. If Greening's theories hold any water, than it would be nice to see what the NIST scientists think of his ideas. Perhaps they could help him research them further, and include them as an addendum or some such, to the original report.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

This little item is taken from a National Insulation Association article on INDUSTRIAL INSULATION JACKETING:

"When FIRE is concerned, the outermost covering or "jacket" will often be stainless steel. Other jacket materials such as galvanized steel can be used in the same way as stainless steel; however, the ZINC COATING ON GALVANIZED STEEL WILL MOST LIKELY MELT IN A FIRE AND POSE A RISK OF LIQUID METAL EMBRITTLEMENT...."

The rest of the quote (http://www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO060101) is "...to any nearby stainless steel surface."

It's an interesting phenomenon.

This article (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407) also mentions potential embrittlement of stainless steel when in contact with liquid zinc.

And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/technical/pdf/galman15.pdf): "The most common liquid metal embrittlement problems associated with hot dip galvanizing are with stainless steel."

Edit: here's an abstract excerpt (http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=ASTM+A143%2FA143M-03) about the likelihood of embrittlement in hot-dip galvanized structural steel:
This practice covers procedures that can be followed to safeguard against the possible embrittlement of steel hot-dip galvanized after fabrication, and outlines test procedures for detecting embrittlement. Conditions of fabrication may induce a susceptibility to embrittlement in certain steels that can be accelerated by galvanizing. Embrittlement is not a common occurrence, however, and this discussion does not imply that galvanizing increases embrittlement where good fabricating and galvanizing procedures are employed. Where history has shown that for specific steels, processes and galvanizing procedures have been satisfactory, this history will serve as an indication that no embrittlement problem is to be expected for those steels, processes, and galvanizing procedures.
And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/cmmagazine/0503/cm0503_11.pdf):
Few standard steels are susceptible to liquid metal embrittlement. This form of embrittlement is caused by the zinc metal penetrating the grain boundaries of the steel and causing stress raisers to form that will result in fracture if the section is put under load.

Stainless steels are very susceptible to this form of embrittlement, and while it is hardly logical to galvanize stainless steel, from time to time, stainless steel fittings may be attached to mild steel fabrications.

[~enigma~]

It would be nice to know. My question is an honest one. If Greening's theories hold any water, than it would be nice to see what the NIST scientists think of his ideas. Perhaps they could help him research them further, and include them as an addendum or some such, to the original report.

TAM:)
Actually, wouldn't it be more revealing to know why the NIST report didn't address Apollo's theory? I think the answer is clear...

[FactCheck]

One more NIST quote:

NCSTAR 1-5G, page 91: "It should be noted that there is a wide variation of time-temperature curves that hold at different points in the structure and that these curves DO NOT resemble those from a standard time-temperature curve used in furnace tests."

So it is good to see NIST spelling out this kind of discrepancy!

Anyway, here's my "chemical" point:

The WTC was built BEFORE computers took over the typical NYC office space and the building infrastructure had to adapt to accommodate "the electronic age". A wide variety of new gadgets such as mainframes, disc drives, tabletop PCs, printers, FAX machines, etc, were installed in the 1980s and 90s requiring more and more power lines and phone/telecommunication cabling, etc. All of these gadgets had to be "hardwired". Think how much extra wiring was installed in the Twin Towers after it was built. Think of all the PVC-coated COPPER in the flooring or plenum spaces. Think of all the galvanized steel ductwork, conduit, cable "raceways"....

COPPER + ZINC + PVC + FIRES = HYDROGEN + HYDROCHLORIC ACID + CHLORINE + MOLTEN METAL CHLORIDES + ZINC EMBRITTLEMENT OF STEELThank you,

Now that I know where your going I may be able to help you.

"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm

[OMGturt1es]

interesting ideas apollo.

i really don't know much about zinc embrittlement, but i don't think any evidence of zinc embrittlement was found. i guess that doesn't necessarily mean it could have not happened, right?

and i've not looked at an appropriate phase diagram, but yes, anhydrite is basically dehyrdrated gypsum, so it doesn't seem to a great a stretch to suspect that high temperatures would free h20 from gypsum...

but i still think evidence suggests the towers should have fallen regardless. if your evidence is good, though, it seems reasonable to assume that you may be onto something.

i don't have the ability to really check your evidence, though, because i suck. but thanks for the interesting posts.

[Disbelief]

It always amazes me that some engineers think that H2O ceases to exist above the critical temperature!

This is the type of comment tha people get frustrated with. Someone asked a question about the amount of humidity and you take a swipe at engineers. Is it not a valid question to ask if it would be humid enough?

I see where you are going. You are trying to say that by not looking into this, which may be a large contributor to the collapse, NIST is missing a huge pice of the puzzle. While in the case of the WTC the plane strike and subsequent fires may have been enough to initiate collapse, the chemical reactions from all the new equipment could cause collapses without the physical damage.

My question then is, why haven't we seen this in other office fires since?

[T.A.M.]

Yes perhaps we should give up on the official terms engineers, and chemists, and doctors, and programmers, and call all of ourselves Science Based Academics (SBAs)...it certainly would eliminate the prejudices...to a degree.

TAM:)

[Brainache]

A very interesting thread this turned out to be.
Here's my complete layman's question:

Wouldn't these chemical effects Apollo20 mentions be more likely to occur in the fires burning in the piles of rubble after the collapse than in the buildings while they were still standing? In the rubble you have all of these ingredients all mixed up together burning for weeks in insulated conditions while water is being poured on from above.

It might explain why people talk about "swiss cheese steel" being pulled from the pile if lots of acid was being created from wallboard, concrete, water, plastic, wires, heat etc.

Of course I may be totally wrong about this, the last time I did any chemistry I was 15 and not all that interested.

[rwguinn]

The rest of the quote (http://www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO060101) is "...to any nearby stainless steel surface."

It's an interesting phenomenon.

This article (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407) also mentions potential embrittlement of stainless steel when in contact with liquid zinc.

And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/technical/pdf/galman15.pdf): "The most common liquid metal embrittlement problems associated with hot dip galvanizing are with stainless steel."

Edit: here's an abstract excerpt (http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=ASTM+A143%2FA143M-03) about the likelihood of embrittlement in hot-dip galvanized structural steel:
And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/cmmagazine/0503/cm0503_11.pdf):

Nice catch--especially for a "non-scientist":)

My questions are valid, as are the ones posed by OMGT, Factcheck, disbelief, TAM and Brainache.
Embrittlement takes time. Even Hydrogen embrittlement (the bane of alternative fuels, and a nasty one at that) takes time.
Embrrittlement entails penetration of the crystal structure by a foriegn substance. As its title implies, it dosn't always reduce the strength of the metal, but it does reduce the flexibility considerably. Normally, A36 steel has approximately 7% elongation at rupture. I don't know what the reduction due to zinc embrittlement wold be, but what would normally be a moderate strain would become excessive, and rupture occurrs.
What we see in the remains of the tower is not so much ruptured steel in an undeformed condition, but fractures at joints(welds, where the heat-affected zone is more fracture-prone than the base metal, and riveted joints, where high stress due to the maximum bending moment can occur), and rupture after extreme strain (where is that "Horseshoe picture?)
Elevated temperatures assist in the embrittlement process, I am sure--not being a metalurgist, I am guessing a bit. What we have here is a time frame of approximately an hour. How long does this process take to reduce the strength of steel 1/2 inch thick by 50%? Inquiring minds want to know.

[FactCheck]

The towers had datacenters and trading floors. What would happen to a few of these huge battery backup racks under those conditions?

http://www.apcc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=ISVT30KF4B4S

Not only in the fires before the collapse but after.

[T.A.M.]

I have never seen this blog before, seems interesting. Anyone know who runs it? Someone here?

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/civil-engineering-magazine.html

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

Someone named Jay. I think hes in JREF.:confused:

[rwguinn]

The towers had datacenters and trading floors. What would happen to a few of these huge battery backup racks under those conditions?

http://www.apcc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=ISVT30KF4B4S

Not only in the fires before the collapse but after.
Jamie want big boom?

[chillzero]

Someone named Jay. I think hes in JREF.:confused:

What does JREF stand for in that context?

[rwguinn]

bump for the good Doctor to reply to the hanging questions....

[FactCheck]

What does JREF stand for in that context?

I think he's a member of JREF.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The rest of the quote (http://www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO060101) is "...to any nearby stainless steel surface."

It's an interesting phenomenon.

This article (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407) also mentions potential embrittlement of stainless steel when in contact with liquid zinc.

And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/technical/pdf/galman15.pdf): "The most common liquid metal embrittlement problems associated with hot dip galvanizing are with stainless steel."

Edit: here's an abstract excerpt (http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=ASTM+A143%2FA143M-03) about the likelihood of embrittlement in hot-dip galvanized structural steel:
And this (http://www.corp.indgalv.com.au/cmmagazine/0503/cm0503_11.pdf):

Hydrogen embrittlement effects carbon steel , with Zinc, Zinc embrittlement effects stainless steels with Zinc being he source of the hydrogen in an Environment of HCL.

[rwguinn]

Hydrogen embrittlement effects carbon steel , with Zinc, Zinc embrittlement effects stainless steels with Zinc being he source of the hydrogen in an Environment of HCL.

so, why do you think apollo20 was harping on zinc embrittlement of the A-36 steel of the WTC?
I don't have a clue, myself.
I also notice that he was on-board today, and refused to answer these questions, instead posing a cryptic comment about galvanization on the fasteners inn the Ca bridge collapse...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think he's a member of JREF.
I think Chillzero was questioning if you were saying he was a member of the JREF forums, or of the Foundation.

[~enigma~]

I think Chillzero was questioning if you were saying he was a member of the JREF forums, or of the Foundation.
i thought in the context it was used it meant Jay's Really Educational Facts....but there is a small chance I am wrong :)