[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[Apollo20]

I e-mailed this to Prof. Astaneh this afternoon:

Dear Professor Astaneh,

I was very pleased to read about your new findings on the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 as recently reported on the internet.

I am not a civil engineer - I am a retired scientist - but I have researched the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, in some detail and I have come to the conclusion that the Twin Towers were doomed from the moment that they were struck by the aircraft.

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny. Professor Astaneh, if you are now saying that the Twin Towers could not have survived such impacts, why would any qualified engineer ever claim that they could?

I also believe that the NIST and FEMA Reports were mainly intended to protect the American construction industry and the designers of the WTC from any criticism and culpability for the catastrophic failures of WTC 1 & 2. Therefore I am not surprised that a proper scientific investigation, such as the one you have been undertaking for the past 5 years, would contradict the NIST and FEMA Reports and reveal the true cause(s) of the tragedy that unfolded in New York City on 9/11.

It is most regrettable that no legal actions or lawsuits associated with 9/11 have been able to make any headway in the face of the government’s position that 19 Arab jihadists were solely responsible for all the death and destruction of 9/11. That an extreme act of terror occurred in New York City on 9/11 is not in doubt. But the fact that the target buildings should have totally succumbed as they did with the loss of almost 3000 lives, needs to be investigated. If the towers were not “up to code”, and a well-designed structure could have survived the aircraft strikes, the American public has a right to know and steps should be taken to ensure that skyscrapers are better designed in the future.

In conclusion, Professor Astaneh, let me add that regardless of how the great 9/11 debate plays-out in the months ahead, I salute your tenacity and courage in speaking out at this time on this very important issue and I hope that your work leads to a reappraisal of the 9/11 tragedy.

Sincerely.....

[PhantomWolf]

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny. Professor Astaneh, if you are now saying that the Twin Towers could not have survived such impacts, why would any qualified engineer ever claim that they could?

I'd point out that the towers clearly -did- survive the impacts, else they would have fallen down immediately.

Looking at the reports of what he said, I'd be interested to know why he thinks that thicker exterior beams and concrete about the stairwells would have prevented the building collapsing, the fires, which were the main cause of the collapse, still would have pulling in the exterior columns, though it may have taken longer for them to give out. Concrete about the stairwell might have helped protect thoise inside, but I doubt they would have held up the buildings.

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.

Astaneh sharply criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers, which he said cared more about defending the industry than revealing the truth about the towers' design.

From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

[Totovader]

...

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.

From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

Exactly- the title of this thread is patently false.

[R.Mackey]

Do you have a link to a whitepaper or publication?

All I know of is his annual lecture (announcement and abstract can be found here (http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/WTC-9-11-2007_Lecture_by_Astaneh_at_%20Sibley%20Aud_UCBerke ley%20Campus.pdf)).

I also add parenthetically that I am on the record (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RMackey_drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf) as criticizing NIST. There isn't a shred of doubt remaining about its core conclusion, namely that impact + fire led to the collapses, but I consider recommendations for future building code still up for debate. See Arup, etc.

[PhantomWolf]

Do you have a link to a whitepaper or publication?

Yes I noticed that Apollo 20 didn't provide any information. This (http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_6870312) is where I found mine.

Reading through your linkie to (eta: the advert for) his speech now.

[Apollo20]

I have had a very interesting response from Prof. Astaneh... He most assuredly criticizes NIST ... for who it contracted some of the structural modeling work to for example.

Conflict of interest I would say!

I guess moral corruption IS everywhere...

[Myriad]

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.
From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

Exactly- the title of this thread is patently false.


I'm willing to give Apollo20 the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the buildings were inadequately designed, and NIST did not point this out (whether or not the design shorcomings were directly relevant to the cause of collapse), then this would seem to at least imply criticism of NIST for the omission.

There's some ambiguity here because "criticism of NIST" may mean criticism of the NCSTAR conclusions, or it may mean criticism of something else about NIST such as how they conducted the investigation, and the two are not interchangeable.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Apollo20]

Did anyone see the 1968 movie ROSEMARY'S BABY?

It kind-of reminds me of how NIST & FEMA operated during the WTC investigations...

And who is Saw-Teen See anyway?

[WildCat]

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny.
NIST could not find any evidence such calculations even exist, what makes you think they do? Have you found eveidence of such calculations?

I also believe that the NIST and FEMA Reports were mainly intended to protect the American construction industry and the designers of the WTC from any criticism and culpability for the catastrophic failures of WTC 1 & 2.
Wow, you think architects, engineers, and builders should be liable for not making a building that could withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet doing 500 mph? In my mind, that's akin to GM being sued because their car could not withstand the impact of a 70 mph freight train.

[R.Mackey]

Did anyone see the 1968 movie ROSEMARY'S BABY?

It kind-of reminds me of how NIST & FEMA operated during the WTC investigations...

And who is Saw-Teen See anyway?

:rolleyes: I think that's my cue to exit.

If anyone finds a written position from the esteemed Professor Astaneh-Asl, please send me a PM. I'd be interested in reading it, and might even agree with what he has to say.

Baiting, however, not so interesting.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm willing to give Apollo20 the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the buildings were inadequately designed, and NIST did not point this out (whether or not the design shorcomings were directly relevant to the cause of collapse), then this would seem to at least imply criticism of NIST for the omission.

Personally I'm not, from what little I can find on Prof. Astaneh, even from his own website (http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/) (which doesn't seem to have been updated lately), his main concerns seem to be about the fact that the building wasn't build to a certain standard that might have survived better under the plane attacks. The Buildings weren't build to be hit by a plane, and as Wildcat says, blaming the engineers that initially built them for that fact is like blaming the car manufactor for the damage that results from thier product being run over by a tank. The buildings were safe for what they were intended for and it is only through hindsight that we know they performed poorly otherwise.

It seems to me to be faulty logic to blame people for things that could not be forseen, and I see no reason for NIST or FEMA to place blame on the engineers or designers for not factoring in someone flying a 767 into the building at top speed.

[cmcaulif]

His study sounds quite similar to this one by Hoo Fat et all:

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Who also find that increasing the thickness of the exterior columns can prevent the wings from penetrating the building.

[WildCat]

I also have my doubts that, even if the buildings did not collapse, anyone above the impact floors could have survived. The firemen couldn't get up, and the trapped people couldn't get down. The death toll would have been roughly the same, less the firefighters killed in the collapse.

[Apollo20]

The missing aircraft impact calculation is just one point I made to Prof. Astaneh. But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...

[PhantomWolf]

Well if you actually have solid evidence of corruption, go for it, if you're just planning to throw about mud and speculation and hope something sticks, then I don't see the point

[A W Smith]

two questions

1) If the towers were built using a conventional bay or grid skeleton system instead of the tube and core design, Would they have withstood the initial impact? (I think not)


2) should skyscrapers built today be designed to withstand attacks from an entity and/or technology 30 years into the future?

[PhantomWolf]

I also have my doubts that, even if the buildings did not collapse, anyone above the impact floors could have survived. The firemen couldn't get up, and the trapped people couldn't get down. The death toll would have been roughly the same, less the firefighters killed in the collapse.

Some might have if they'd found the right stairwells. Not all of the stairwells were blocked, but only a few people discovered that. Of course if some twerp hadn't decided after '93 that there was the possiblity of roof access by terrorists and so locked the fire door access to the roof and placed spikes all over it to prevent helicopters landing, they might have gotten some off that way too, assuming that the pilots were willing to risk it.

[PhantomWolf]

two questions

1) If the towers were built using a conventional bay or grid skeleton system instead of the tube and core design, Would they have withstood the initial impact? (I think not)

From what I understand, one of the main reasons that they weren't, was that because of the size, it simply wasn't possible to build buildings using the standard beam and column bays that were in use at the time. The weight of the steel would have meant that the lower floors would have had to have been solid.

[R.Mackey]

Some might have if they'd found the right stairwells. Not all of the stairwells were blocked, but only a few people discovered that. Of course if some twerp hadn't decided after '93 that there was the possiblity of roof access by terrorists and so locked the fire door access to the roof and placed spikes all over it to prevent helicopters landing, they might have gotten some off that way too, assuming that the pilots were willing to risk it.


Eighteen people descended from the upper floors of WTC 2, as the off-center impact nearly spared Stairway A. No one from the upper floors of WTC 1 survived, if I remember correctly.

The heat of the fires would have made helicopter rescue impossible. The helicopters on-scene noticed immediate excessive EGT (exhaust-gas temperature sensor) readings in their turbines when they got close, even without hovering, as they would have had to do to rescue anyone. The decision to discourage rooftop rescue was correct, but it's unfortunate that not everyone understood that.

Now I'm really gone. Let me know when it's out on pay-per-view.

[Regnad Kcin]

This:

I am a retired scientist...

does not go with this:

...But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...

[boloboffin]

If the towers were not “up to code”...

That should be quite easy to determine. Does the code under which the buildings were built include ability to withstand aircraft impact and the resulting fires?

No?

Then on what possible basis would corruption charges or civil lawsuits against the WTC design team, NIST, or FEMA proceed?

ETA: Moreover, NIST explicitly makes clear that their study CANNOT be used in any litigation. So what possible motive could they have in covering anything up?

[3bodyproblem]

Has DRG become a total enigma or what? You certainly keep it interesting, sir.

[boloboffin]

The heat of the fires would have made helicopter rescue impossible. The helicopters on-scene noticed immediate excessive EGT (exhaust-gas temperature sensor) readings in their turbines when they got close, even without hovering, as they would have had to do to rescue anyone. The decision to discourage rooftop rescue was correct, but it's unfortunate that not everyone understood that.

Thank you for that. I knew there had to be a good reason for this.

[cmcaulif]

From what I understand, one of the main reasons that they weren't, was that because of the size, it simply wasn't possible to build buildings using the standard beam and column bays that were in use at the time. The weight of the steel would have meant that the lower floors would have had to have been solid.

I'd be interested in Asteneh's results, but in the paper above from Hoo Fat, they increased the column thickness from 9.5mm to 20mm to stop the wings from penetrating, which is pretty significant and would add a great deal of weight.

Though their simulation stops as soon as the wings hit the building, and it would be interesting to find out how this would effect the fuel dispersion and fire in the event of an impact to a beefed up perimeter as well.

[hellaeon]

This:

[apollo quote]

does not go with this:

[apollo quote]



Thats the first thing I thought.

[Viper Daimao]

The missing aircraft impact calculation is just one point I made to Prof. Astaneh. But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...

...but you haven't told us what he's saying, nor anything about this supposed corruption angle. What are we supposed to discuss? Idle speculation?

[T.A.M.]

I think Apollo has just produced the so called "Hit and Run" post...lol


I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway

TAM:)

[Viper Daimao]

it wasn't even a hit, it was more like him telling us he had a hit in another game and then running away when we asked about it.

[~enigma~]

I think Apollo has just produced the so called "Hit and Run" post...lol

Quote:
I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway
If there is any better proof that Apollo has went fully woo i would like to see it.

[jaydeehess]

It is not so woo as one might suspect.
For one thing this has nothing to do with blaming neo-cons, no-planers, space weapons etc.

The subject is also not whether or not the buildings were up-to-code. They were. However, the code they adhered to was written specifically for them(well, for the PANYNJ).

Secondly, it has been brought up by others, on various occassions and in various venues that the core walls were simple drywall and that did nothing to protect the fire standpipes, sprinkler pipes, stairwells, that the spray on insulation used in many buildings is easily abraded but that a cementatious spray on is available as is a paint on that only expands when heated and adheres much better than the present insulation(which in many cases simply comes off when workers install new systems, such as new lighting)

Stairwells were narrow. They only have to be 44 inches wide!! Getting thousands of people out while having FF's go up takes too long.
Stairwells also were only protected by drywall. A concrete wall may have kept some stairs to the upper sections open.

Some elevators can be mounted to the outside corners of buildings and given secure power.

So there are two topics here.
1) Do codes for tall structures need to be rewritten, concrete stairwells, concrete protection of water supplies,cementatious insulation, secure elevators, wider stairwells?
2) Was there a deal made for PANYNJ that lessened the cost of construction and operation at the expense of safety?

The problem with #1 is that it would shine a light on the fact that these things have been thought of for a long time and that the deaths of 3000 people are what would be bringing them to light. The engineering community could be seen as culpable in not pushing for these changes earlier. The idea being that it would make buildings more expensive(increase the cost of a $100 million structure by 1% and you need another $1 million) and that would(could) impact the construction contracts that engineering firms get. Push for greater safety=less work

The problem with #2 is obvious. It would mean that someone's head would be on the line. Probably several, powerful, someones.

[Peephole]

To add some context, these are the opinions of Astaneh-Asl:

December 2003:

Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/%7Eastaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf

September 2007:

"On 911 building the lost, the plane ended up being stronger than building, entered the building, caused the fire and the fire collapsed the buildings," said UC Berkeley professor Albolhassan Astaneh.

The World Trade Center was built using a type of construction that as far as professor Astaneh knows had never been used before, and has not been used since. Steel walls surround the structure bearing most of the load. In traditional building there's structural framing like a cage throughout the building making it stronger according to the professor.

"Our studies show that if you had designed it according to code using the traditional systems that we use in any other building the building would be easily defeating the plane," said Professor Astaneh.

Professor Astaneh says it's a little known fact that the World Trade Center was built without conforming to New York City's building code and without New York City permits; that's because construction was under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

"It doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the gravity design to resist the gravity of wind. But such a design did not have the embedded robustness that the code design would have," said Professor Astaneh.

He was quick to point out it wasn't engineers or designers who killed more than 3,000 people that day.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=5646058

September 2007:

Speaking on campus to memorialize the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Abolhassan Astaneh said his five-year study of the collapse of the Twin Towers revealed that a better design likely would have prevented many of the nearly 3,000 deaths that day.

Astaneh sharply criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers, which he said cared more about defending the industry than revealing the truth about the towers' design.

"It's just moral corruption," Astaneh said in response to a question from the audience. "I don't beat around the bushes."

Astaneh, who first researched the disaster in the days following Sept. 11, said he had access to well-guarded architectural drawings of the 110-story towers for his study. The schematics showed that the buildings were supported almost completely by thin steel beams around the outside.

Thicker beams on the exterior and more concrete surrounding the stairwells would have added at least $30 million to the cost of the buildings, he said, but could have saved hundreds or thousands of lives after airliners hit both towers. Instead, the resulting 1,000-degree fire easily destroyed the structure, he said. Most tall skyscrapers, including Chicago's Sears Tower, are sturdier and likely wouldsurvive such attacks, Astaneh said. Because of the industry's defensiveness, "the public is left with the notion that these buildings were like any other buildings, he said.

With thicker beams, the animation showed the planes disintegrating almost immediately after hitting the tower. In contrast, the airliners punched through the unreinforced exterior with little resistance.

"Like a knife cutting through soft butter," Astaneh said. "Airplanes are not very strong, but this building was even weaker than an airplane."

New York building codes would have prevented the towers' flimsy design, he said, but federal laws allowed engineers to ignore those codes. The same exception has been granted to developers of New York's Freedom Tower, which will replace the World Trade Center.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_6870312

[jaydeehess]

BTW the new WTC 7 has 56 inch wide (IIRC) stairwells that are protected by concrete, and redundant + separated fire suppression systems.

[T.A.M.]

No I think Apollo just likes to taunt the "JREFers" as he has labeled us.

TAM:)

[parky76]

like 20,000 people escaped the towers. they did their job.

[~enigma~]

It is not so woo as one might suspect.
For one thing this has nothing to do with blaming neo-cons, no-planers, space weapons etc.

The subject is also not whether or not the buildings were up-to-code. They were. However, the code they adhered to was written specifically for them(well, for the PANYNJ).

Secondly, it has been brought up by others, on various occassions and in various venues that the core walls were simple drywall and that did nothing to protect the fire standpipes, sprinkler pipes, stairwells, that the spray on insulation used in many buildings is easily abraded but that a cementatious spray on is available as is a paint on that only expands when heated and adheres much better than the present insulation(which in many cases simply comes off when workers install new systems, such as new lighting)

Stairwells were narrow. They only have to be 44 inches wide!! Getting thousands of people out while having FF's go up takes too long.
Stairwells also were only protected by drywall. A concrete wall may have kept some stairs to the upper sections open.

Some elevators can be mounted to the outside corners of buildings and given secure power.

So there are two topics here.
1) Do codes for tall structures need to be rewritten, concrete stairwells, concrete protection of water supplies,cementatious insulation, secure elevators, wider stairwells?
2) Was there a deal made for PANYNJ that lessened the cost of construction and operation at the expense of safety?

The problem with #1 is that it would shine a light on the fact that these things have been thought of for a long time and that the deaths of 3000 people are what would be bringing them to light. The engineering community could be seen as culpable in not pushing for these changes earlier. The idea being that it would make buildings more expensive(increase the cost of a $100 million structure by 1% and you need another $1 million) and that would(could) impact the construction contracts that engineering firms get. Push for greater safety=less work

The problem with #2 is obvious. It would mean that someone's head would be on the line. Probably several, powerful, someones.
The woo is based on his odd remark about Jrefers but I'm sure you understand that.

[~enigma~]

No I think Apollo just likes to taunt the "JREFers" as he has labeled us.

TAM:)
Well he can clarify if he wants but slinging Jrefer as an insult like a few posters on LCF gets him called a woo. But again what I don't understand is that since Apollo is a poster here I guess he is a Jrefer.

[notheist]

This was the subject of PBSs NOVA program two nights ago, NIST has already made some big recommendations in the areas of fire proofing and better wider hardened stair wells.

Very interesting program, you had to feel sorry for Leslie Robertson the lead structural engineer of the WTC.

How safe is safe? How far do you go before it become a hindrance to progress. It's easy to be an armchair engineer after the fact.

Building on Ground Zero
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[notheist]

What if...
The WTC towers has four elevator shafts at each corner, all the people above the fire floors may have gotten out.

What if...
A system for evacuation from the roof had been developed and but into use?

And while we prepare for a similar attack, the terrorist will be planing a poison gas attack.

How safe are the ventilation systems in these buildings? Do we need a system to detect dangerous gasses and a system to clear any from buildings?

[jaydeehess]

A20 is an intelligent but eccentric man who suffers fools badly. This is compounded by what appears to be a belief of his, that the great and vast majority of all persons are fools. Further complicating matters is his occassional venture into his own foolishness, which of course he cannot recognize as such.

In the matter at hand in this thread however, I believe he is correct (not including his editorial comment on "JREFer's")

[Totovader]

The missing aircraft impact calculation is just one point I made to Prof. Astaneh. But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...

Oh- and I'm sure you were entirely forthcoming on your intentions of using Professor Astaneh-Asl as your hand puppet...

[~enigma~]

A20 is an intelligent but eccentric man who suffers fools badly. This is compounded by what appears to be a belief of his, that the great and vast majority of all persons are fools. Further complicating matters is his occassional venture into his own foolishness, which of course he cannot recognize as such.

In the matter at hand in this thread however, I believe he is correct (not including his editorial comment on "JREFer's")
Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.

[jaydeehess]

What if...
The WTC towers has four elevator shafts at each corner, all the people above the fire floors may have gotten out.

What if...
A system for evacuation from the roof had been developed and but into use?

And while we prepare for a similar attack, the terrorist will be planing a poison gas attack.

How safe are the ventilation systems in these buildings? Do we need a system to detect dangerous gasses and a system to clear any from buildings?

It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.

Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.

[jaydeehess]

Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.

I dislike the man too.

I also dislike GWB. (actually I would rather spend a month in purgatory than an hour with him) That does not mean that I will side with the CT's or dismiss everything he has to say out of hand.

[jaydeehess]

When I read A20's posts I try to separate the shinola he paints with, from the feces he throws.

[PhantomWolf]

It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.

The fire protection systems worked fine in 1975 when they had a major fire, and sprinklers were added after that. The fact of the matter is that no-one envisioned a situation where multiple stairways and lifts would be taken out of action making it very difficult to evacuate and the fire protection and sprinkler system would would be destroyed allowing the fire to go unchecked. Having said that after 1993 evacuation procedures and system were reviewed and emergency lighting and smoke extractors addd to the stairwells. The disaster of 9/11 was beyond the scope of anyone imagination, let alone those that designed the plave in the 60's.

Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.

The building met the codes it needed too, and its systems were able to handle normal situations. Having a plane smash into it at 500 mph is not a normal situation.

[einsteen]

Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.

[PhantomWolf]

Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.

[Dave Rogers]

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

I think the role of the jet fuel as an accelerant is fairly important to the collapse initiation mechanism as well; the truther claim that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire can be countered by pointing out that no previous high-rise contents fire has been so quickly spread by the presence of an accelerant. So the heirarchy of increasingly complex required causes becomes:

Impact damage AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (Quintiere, Astaneh, Arup, Greening)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (NIST)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)

Video manipulation AND explosives to simulate aircraft impact AND incendiaries to spread fires AND impossible energy beams from space (batcrap crazy)

Dave

[PhantomWolf]

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)

I think it's closer to:

Minor Impact damage AND small jet fuel fires AND some sort of combination of explosives and therm*te (truth movement)

[notheist]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy

Asbestos fibers in the air and rubble following the collapse of the World Trade Center is adding to fears in the aftermath of Tuesday’s terrorist attack. The true tragedy in the asbestos story, though, is the lives that might have been saved but for 1970s-era hysteria about asbestos.

Until 30 years ago, asbestos was added to flame-retardant sprays used to insulate steel building materials, particularly floor supports. The insulation was intended to delay the steel from melting in the case of fire by up to four hours.

In the case of the World Trade Center, emergency plans called for this four-hour window to be used to evacuate the building while helicopters sprayed to put out the fire and evacuated persons from the roof.

The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s following reports of asbestos workers becoming ill from high exposures to asbestos fibers. The Mt. Sinai School of Medicine’s Irving Selikoff had reported that asbestos workers had higher rates of lung cancer and other diseases. Selikoff then played a key role in the campaign to halt the use of asbestos in construction.

In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers.

Other materials were substituted for asbestos. Though the substitute sprays passed Underwriters Laboratories’ tests, not everyone was convinced they would work as well.

One skeptic was the late-Herbert Levine who invented spray fireproofing with wet asbestos in the late-1940s. Levine’s invention involved a combination of asbestos with mineral wool and made commonplace the construction of large steel framed buildings.

Previously, buildings such as the Empire State Building had to have their steel framework insulated with concrete, a much more expensive insulator that was more difficult to use.

Levine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that “if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.”

That appears to be what happened Tuesday, according to Richard Wilson, a risk expert and physics professor at Harvard University.

The two hijacked airliners crashed into floors 96 to 103 of One World Trade Center and floors 87 to 93 of Two World Trade Center. Instead of the steel girders of the towers lasting up to four hours before melting, the steel frames of One World Trade Center lasted only one hour and forty minutes, while the steel frames of Two World Trade Center lasted just 56 minutes before collapsing.

Though many were able to escape during those times, thousands apparently were not, including the hundreds of firefighters and police killed when the buildings suddenly and prematurely collapsed.

Selikoff was certainly right to point out that some workers heavily exposed to certain types of asbestos fibers were at increased risk of disease. But Selikoff was wrong to press the panic button about any use of or exposure to asbestos. For example, no adverse health effect has ever been attributed to Levine’s technique of spraying wet asbestos, according to Harvard’s Wilson.

We may now be paying a horrible price for junk science-fueled asbestos hysteria.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

[jaydeehess]

Simply put I have no problem with reviewing fire codes for very tall structures and if using a different insulation and requiring wider, better protected stairwells is shown to be in order then let's change the codes.

It is fact that the PANYNJ had more lax codes than NYC. If that was done solely to make construction less expensive then that is reprehensible.

It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.

That is not critical thinikng IMHO.

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy


I know it smacks of ad hominem, but if Steven Milloy said the sky was blue, I'd seriously consider the possibility it might be green.

Dave

[rwguinn]

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.
I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.
Also, faced with that inferno initiated by the Jet-A, any normal office fire supression system would be be like a squirt gun at a bonfire...
As for Apollo20--When he talks Chemistry, I'll listen. That is something he knows.
When he goes into politics, engineering, and sociology--he's just a woo-ish as Avery, Lyte, and their ilk.

[Alferd_Packer]

The one issue that seems to be overlooked was that the original sprayed on fireproofing appears to have been substandard in design, formulation and application.

The mafia connection to this has never been fully explored to my knowlege.

[Alferd_Packer]

I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.

The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.

[rwguinn]

The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.
I missed that part of the post. Back to reading the whole thing, not just the most recent replies. Sorry 'bout that.
That makes prior performance even more impressive.

[Alferd_Packer]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy
.[/I]

I disagree. Most of the problems with the fireproofing in the building had little to do with the presence of asbestos or not. True, the formula used in most of the structures did not include asbestos, and as such, it was a new formulation by the manufacturer that was devised as a substitute. This, however, does not alleviate that fact that the material was formulated to be applied under specific conditions and controls that were not apparently followed.

There were a number of issues with the fireproofing. One was that the specified thickness may not have been adequate. Weather this was a result of a cost benefit analysis, or a misapplication of codes and formulas, or just a general lack of understanding going all the way to the manufacturer is not really clear to me.

Delays in the initial construction caused the columns and trusses stored outside to rust. Rusty scale on the steel was not cleaned off prior to the installation of the fireproofing. This caused extensive problems later with fireproofing coming loose in huge sheets. Rain during construction often washed the exposed fireproofing from the steel. Fireproofing is installed wet. It needs to dry out thoroughly after application.

After a building floor is sealed off, the other trades come in to hang pipes, conduits, ceilings, etc. All of these activities involve the intentional removal of fireproofing from the parts of the structure that the component will be hung from. This is supposed to be repaired afterward, but in practice it rarely is.

Inspections of the fireproofing in the 90’s indicated that based on all of the above factors, the fireproofing in the building was definitely sub par. Even if asbestos containing fireproofing was used, the problems would have still been there.

This is an issue that has never been fully explored and probably won't ever be.

[Apollo20]

The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.

[slyjoe]

Does this mean you have a problem with Boeing being involved in the investigation of airplane crashes?

[T.A.M.]

Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?

[Jonnyclueless]

So when NIST basically concluded that the design was partly responsible for the collapase, how it that not being critical of the design? They basically said the events exploited the design weakness.

How many buildings are being constructed with the same design used for the WTC?

[Apollo20]

Jonnyclueless:

Could you please show me where NIST state that the design of the towers was "partly responsible" for the collapse.

[~enigma~]

Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM:)
Not a new allegation. there have been numerous conflit of interest claims ever since the 9/11 commision was formed. Remeber that the 9/11 CTs recycle old bs instead of introducing new evidence.

[jaydeehess]

Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM:)


Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
I suggest that the above should be shifted from a discussion of "9/11" conspiracies to that of a discussion of "was there, or was there not, actions taken to minimize the liability of individuals whose involvement in the construction/maintenance of WTC may have facilitated the structural failure".

Yes, I admit, that's a long description; but I contend that this material is fundementally different from "9/11 conspiracies". It does not dispute the events of the attacks. It deals specifically with what failings, prior to the attacks, may have been covered-up or glossed-over after the fact.

I think it is a worthy topic of discussion, but I feel it would benefit from being divorced from "9/11 conspiracies".

My US$0.02 (or is that Amero$0.02 ?)

[Oxigen]

Apollo20,
I am just wondering if this is news to you or have you always suspected the integrity of the building. As I have mentioned to you previously, I follow your posts with great interest, and this one is most interesting. :)

[T.A.M.]

If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?

I would not want them heading up the investigation, or have a majority of the investigators under their "influence" so to speak, no...with this we can agree. Do you feel this was the case with NIST??

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.

Indeed, and if there is enough legitimate evidence to warrant an investigation into this angle, I agree it should occur. My issue, perhaps linked to this, is the slippery slope the "truthers" will take, that will read along these lines...

"Well if they were willing to avoid investigating this aspect, or worse, hid information on this issue, what else did they hide...hmmm...hmmmm"

You know you can hear them now...hmmmm

TAM;)

[Augustine]

The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.

There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...

[T.A.M.]

Exactly...

Like I said, if the people in the project connected to the designers/engineers in the WTCs design/construction were of major influence or import on the report and investigation, than I think a case could be made to review the entire report for oversight or areas given minimal attention, but otherwise I think it is fair...I mean you want to have some input from those who knew the buildings the best.

TAM:)

[Oxigen]

hmmmmm!

Just joking. I do have a sense of humour and am willing to see how this topic develops. This at least sounds someway plausible.

[boloboffin]

Re: LERA's contract being the first

6.6.2 The Reference Models

Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. ...These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the six subterranean levels. The models included primary structural components in the towers, resulting in tens of thousands of computation elements. The data for these elements came from the original structrual drawing books for the towers. These had been updated through the completion of the buildings and also included most of the subsequent, significant alterations by both tenants and The Port Authority. LERA also developed reference models of a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings, and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors.

LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span. The accuracy of the four models was checked in two ways:

* The two global models were checked by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), also under contract to NIST, and by NIST staff. This entailed ensuring consistency of the models with the design documents, and testing the models, for example, to ensure that the response of the models to gravity and wind loads was as intended and that the calculated stresses and deformations under these loads were reasonable.

* The global model of WTC 1 was used to calculate the natural vibration periods of the tower. These values were then compared to measurements from the towers on eight dates of winds ranging from 11.5 mph to 41 mph blowing from at least four different directions. As shown in Table 6-3, the N-S and E-W values agreed within 5 percent and the torsion values agreed within 6 percent, both within the combined uncertainty in the measurements and calculations.

* SOM and NIST staff also checked the two floor models for accuracy. These reviews involved comparison with simple hand calculations of estimated deflections and member stresses for a simply supported composite truss and beam under gravity loading. For the composite truss sections, the steel stress results wer ewithin 4 percent of those calculated by SAP2000 for the long-span truss and within 3 percent for the short-span truss. Deflections for the beams and trusses matched hand calculations to within 5 percent to 15 percent. These differences were within the combined uncertainty of the methods.

The few discrepancies between the developed models and the original design documents, as well as the areas identified by NIST and SOM as needing modification, were corrected by LERA and approved by NIST. The models then served as reference for more detailed models for aircraft impact damage analysis and for thermal-structural response and collapse initiation analysis.

[leftysergeant]

I think that both Astineh and Quintiere are making the same point. The NIST avoided making a statement that thev towers could have beren better designed and that there were things discovered in the course of investigation that would have allowed a stronger, more resistant design. This would, of course, neccessitate that any new construction must take these factors into cxonsideration, and that any revisions to the building code should include measures addressing these concerns. It is in this area that politics may have entered the mix.

Tougher building codes are just not very Republican, or at least not a bloody bit neo-con.

[WildCat]

Tougher building codes are just not very Republican, or at least not a bloody bit neo-con.
Are you seriously claiming that Republicans and neo-cons write the building codes for New York City?

[Crungy]

Are you seriously claiming that Republicans and neo-cons write the building codes for New York City?

In Chicago, the trades unions wield enormous influence on what gets written into the building codes.

I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.

[3bodyproblem]

Is that Bruce or Pickering? Cuz my cottage is by Douglas Point and I'd want answers, but Pickering, forget about it.

[PhantomWolf]

It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.

Personally I don't care who brought it to the table, to me it smacks of 20/20 hindsight blaming those that made the decisions 40 years ago and trying to shift the responsibility from the attackers to the building designers. The buildings were built to handle 767's slamming into them at 500mph, they were built to handle the winds and hold people as an office building. Yes I am sure there were a lot of things that could have been done better, and some times may have been skimped on to save money, but at the same time saying that certain things should have been done, not because they would have made the buildings safer for everyday use, but because it might have helped them survive a unimaginable event (especially in the 1960's) and because they didn't they should be blamed for building an unsafe building is totally rediculous.

[PhantomWolf]

There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...

So they had very little control over the report anyways. Personally I would WANT people involved in the designing to be on the team because they'd likely have knowledge about the way the buildings would react and why certain things were done that outsiders wouldn't have. As long as the leadership of the group was independant and wasn't overly swayed by those few team members, I don't see any issues. Once more it seems that Apollo 20 is making mountains out of mole hills.

[WildCat]

I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.
And it's even worse when the inspectors are complete idiots who know nothing of building construction and instead get their jobs because they're somebody's somebody. I saw a porch violation today where the inspector claimed the ledger board wasn't bolted to the wall. Problem is, the porch used lookouts and not ledger boards, what the idiot building inspector was calling a ledger board was simply the joist closest to the wall. No ledger boards at all on that porch!

[rwguinn]

Simply put I have no problem with reviewing fire codes for very tall structures and if using a different insulation and requiring wider, better protected stairwells is shown to be in order then let's change the codes.

It is fact that the PANYNJ had more lax codes than NYC. If that was done solely to make construction less expensive then that is reprehensible.

It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.

That is not critical thinikng IMHO.

Have you any idea just how much design capabilities and materials, fastening, joining, and fabrication sciences have changed in the past 40 years?
Do you have any idea just how much our understanding of systems and interactions have changed in the past 45 years?
Are you aware that there is (likely) as much computing power in your house right now as existed on the whole damn planet 45 years ago?
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. But those guys did the whole design on what would, by today's standards, be considered a bunch of coctail napkins. Sure, there are mountains of documentation. But simulations were on the very close order of F=mA, and s=M*c/I. All done by hand.
If we knew then what we know today, things would have been done differently. Blaming the engineers and engineering firms for "omissions" is quite like the "Pointy haired boss" saying: "I need a list of all unforseen problems and their solutions by noon"
I think they did a helluva job designing and building those buildings. As was pointed out, when they were built, Sprinklers weren't even part of the code!

[LashL]

Personally I don't care who brought it to the table, to me it smacks of 20/20 hindsight blaming those that made the decisions 40 years ago and trying to shift the responsibility from the attackers to the building designers. The buildings were not built to handle 767's slamming into them at 500mph, they were built to handle the winds and hold people as an office building. Yes I am sure there were a lot of things that could have been done better, and some times may have been skimped on to save money, but at the same time saying that certain things should have been done, not because they would have made the buildings safer for everyday use, but because it might have helped them survive a unimaginable event (especially in the 1960's) and because they didn't they should be blamed for building an unsafe building is totally rediculous.

Just fixed that for you because you know that some twoofer will glom on to your inadvertent omission of the word "not" to suggest that you meant the exact opposite of what you actually meant.

[PhantomWolf]

Just fixed that for you because you know that some twoofer will glom on to your inadvertent omission of the word "not" to suggest that you meant the exact opposite of what you actually meant.

heh, thanks. If I had a $1 for everytime I accidently left out the "not" or "n't" in a post and reversed what I was actually saying, I'd be even richer. ;)

[TC329]

“The impact did nothing,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said, pointing to a massive interior column from the south tower that he believes remained standing even after three-quarters of it was sliced away by a jet part.

[...]

“The airplane did not do much damage,” he said, showing bolts and fasteners that suggest to him the towers were well designed and well constructed.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299 (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299)

[~enigma~]

“The impact did nothing,”
Oh...the WTC were made of a top secret government alloy that absorbed the kinetic energy from the impact yet had nothing happen? If you really think that a quote taken literally while being ripped out of context is anything more than an indication of your extreme dishonesty and immaturity you really are nuts.

[Dave Rogers]

“The impact did nothing,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said, pointing to a massive interior column from the south tower that he believes remained standing even after three-quarters of it was sliced away by a jet part.

[...]

“The airplane did not do much damage,” he said, showing bolts and fasteners that suggest to him the towers were well designed and well constructed.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299 (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299)

From the same source, with my bolding:

A structural engineer examining the twisted bones of the World Trade Center said Friday he has tentatively concluded the towers collapsed because of intense fires fanned by jet fuel.

A few comments on the above piece of blatant quote mining:

(1) Clearly the comment "The impact did nothing" is obviously not meant literally, otherwise three-quarters of the column referred to would not have been "sliced away by a jet part".

(2) This was written on the 7th October 2001. Has it occurred to you that some further investigation might have taken place since then that would have resulted in a different set of conclusions? For example, the FEMA and NIST studies?

(3) If you actually read the article, rather than quote mining, it clearly suggests a collapse due to impact damage and fire, and doesn't for one moment suggest that any further damage would be necessary.

(4) Since these quotes pre-date the NIST enquiry, they can hardly be said to disagree with its conclusions.

Still, congratulations on finding something to muddy the waters slightly. I'm sure that the more confusion you spread, the quicker everyone will arrive at the Truth[tm].

Dave

[jaydeehess]

Have you any idea just how much design capabilities and materials, fastening, joining, and fabrication sciences have changed in the past 40 years?
Do you have any idea just how much our understanding of systems and interactions have changed in the past 45 years?
Are you aware that there is (likely) as much computing power in your house right now as existed on the whole damn planet 45 years ago?
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. But those guys did the whole design on what would, by today's standards, be considered a bunch of coctail napkins. Sure, there are mountains of documentation. But simulations were on the very close order of F=mA, and s=M*c/I. All done by hand.
If we knew then what we know today, things would have been done differently. Blaming the engineers and engineering firms for "omissions" is quite like the "Pointy haired boss" saying: "I need a list of all unforseen problems and their solutions by noon"
I think they did a helluva job designing and building those buildings. As was pointed out, when they were built, Sprinklers weren't even part of the code!

The most basic point is that things do change and that because of that codes should be reviewed and updated to take those changes into account.
If a code is changed there are two parts to that change. Future construction and retrofit of existing buildings. Obviously it would be next to impossible to enclose the entire stairwell of an existing building in concrete walls. Cost would also have to play a part in consideration of a retrofit order, obviously.

I fail to understand the strident reluctance exhibited by some to even consider a review and possible updating to new standards, the fire codes for tall structures.

The fact that engineering and computing power has changed over the last decades is a moot point if at the time of construction the WTC buildings only had to conform to a less stringent code than was , at that time, in place for NYC. Implementing measures not required by code is commendable but if the passive fire protection was less than required for a building two blocks north do we call it even? After the bomb blast in '93 (?) reccomendations were made and implemented due to problems seen at that time. These were listed above by another poster, for eg. fans to keep stairwells free of smoke, and barriers to prevent smoke in one tower from entering the other one. In the case of 9/11 there was a problem that the stairwells could not survive even modest damage and could not protect the occupants of the stairwells from fire on the floor for long. That is a situation that could be encountered again even without a bloody great aircraft ramming the building.
The long trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward due to the heat. This is also a situation that could be encountered again even without 10,000 gallons of liquid accellerant being used.

Does it not make sense to take the effect on the towers and examine if it teaches any lessons , and most importantly, if there are lessons to be learned from this, to implement change? To not even consider doing so is reminiscent of the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

..................


,,,, and now I see that TC has come by to derail this thread completely away from the OP with his brand of quote mining and moronic mis-statements.

[T.A.M.]

they raise "quote mining" to an art form...

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

The most basic point is that things do change and that because of that codes should be reviewed and updated to take those changes into account.
If a code is changed there are two parts to that change. Future construction and retrofit of existing buildings. Obviously it would be next to impossible to enclose the entire stairwell of an existing building in concrete walls. Cost would also have to play a part in consideration of a retrofit order, obviously.

I fail to understand the strident reluctance exhibited by some to even consider a review and possible updating to new standards, the fire codes for tall structures.

The fact that engineering and computing power has changed over the last decades is a moot point if at the time of construction the WTC buildings only had to conform to a less stringent code than was , at that time, in place for NYC. Implementing measures not required by code is commendable but if the passive fire protection was less than required for a building two blocks north do we call it even? After the bomb blast in '93 (?) reccomendations were made and implemented due to problems seen at that time. These were listed above by another poster, for eg. fans to keep stairwells free of smoke, and barriers to prevent smoke in one tower from entering the other one. In the case of 9/11 there was a problem that the stairwells could not survive even modest damage and could not protect the occupants of the stairwells from fire on the floor for long. That is a situation that could be encountered again even without a bloody great aircraft ramming the building.
The long trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward due to the heat. This is also a situation that could be encountered again even without 10,000 gallons of liquid accellerant being used.

Does it not make sense to take the effect on the towers and examine if it teaches any lessons , and most importantly, if there are lessons to be learned from this, to implement change? To not even consider doing so is reminiscent of the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

..................


,,,, and now I see that TC has come by to derail this thread completely away from the OP with his brand of quote mining and moronic mis-statements.

Please don't get the impression that I am disagreeing with you on the updating of Codes and practices & procedures. These must be upgraded, as we learn more.
The problem with the WTCs destruction was not code violation--I firmly believe that the insulation on the steel could not have prevented the collapse in any case, simply for the reasons previously stated--a combination of removal by collision and other factors. The codes need revision with the advent of new materials and/or methods. But retrofitting and entire building is certainly not practical, or even possible.
Most places have a "If you touch it, you upgrade it" regulation wrt remodeling: If you touch the plumbing/electrical/HVAC/structure to move or modify it it, the whole system must be brought up to current code. I can see that applying to a single floor at most of a building of WTC 1 and 2's size...
It is the "Engineers are corrupt and should have known better" BS from Apollo20 and the rest of the woo-woo crowd that caused the rant. Engineers didn't build the thing--they designed it. Politics built the thing--between the inspectors, unions, individual workers, and all the other people that get involved and wanted a piece of the pie.
Engineering is pretty much defined by "doing the best possible with the tools and materials you have". And they didn't have the tools back then.

[Apollo20]

jaydeehess:

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.

[3bodyproblem]

Apollo20= Devils Advocate. Indefensible? Is that really the word you were looking for?

[Regnad Kcin]

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.What is that supposed to mean?

[PhantomWolf]

jaydeehess:

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.

There isn't a lot of point in arguing with someone that bases their entire believe on susposition, speculation and conjecture either. Apollo 20, I am serious disappointed in your posting here. On chemisty you have a wonderful grasp of science and how to apply it, your posts are well thought out, meaningfull, and well supported with evidence and references. When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT. I truely find it hard to mesh these two things and understand the way you have acted on this board. I really hope that you manage to figure it out yourself and instead of throwing away the analytical mind you use with your chemistry when you leave that subject, treat all things you post here the same as you do that science.

[3bodyproblem]

"RGUING" is a clever play on words, clever at the expense of a pretty well respected JREF'er. "NISTIAN engineer" is some sort of Freudian association with NIST and the obvious symbolism of the two largest buildings ever erected in the US. So says me.

[rwguinn]

"RGUING" is a clever play on words, clever at the expense of a pretty well respected JREF'er. "NISTIAN engineer" is some sort of Freudian association with NIST and the obvious symbolism of the two largest buildings ever erected in the US. So says me.
Hell-
I think its funny.

[boloboffin]

What is that supposed to mean?

It means Apollo didn't think the crock had been stirred well enough yet.

[Hokulele]

There isn't a lot of point in arguing with someone that bases their entire believe on susposition, speculation and conjecture either. Apollo 20, I am serious disappointed in your posting here. On chemisty you have a wonderful grasp of science and how to apply it, your posts are well thought out, meaningfull, and well supported with evidence and references. When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT. I truely find it hard to mesh these two things and understand the way you have acted on this board. I really hope that you manage to figure it out yourself and instead of throwing away the analytical mind you use with your chemistry when you leave that subject, treat all things you post here the same as you do that science.


I have a theory on this. I will have to go through the posting history to prove or disprove this theory, but I believe that the posts Apollo20 makes on this forum vary based on the current phase on the moon. The first and fourth quarter are fine, but the second and third are right out. In other words, his posting style is that of a were-woo.

[3bodyproblem]

Oh it's funny, that's one thing that seems to be consistent, the funny. It's just poingnant the targets he picks in the process, that's all I was pointing out.

[3bodyproblem]

Hokulele: I don't have the ability to quote properly on this computer, but that last post of yours was funny as well. I think you just coined a term as well. were-woo? Now that's clever.

[jaydeehess]

jaydeehess:

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.

Actually rwguinn's post #89 brings us pretty close to agreement.
My only remaining concern would be the reasoning for the differing codes for NYC and PANYNJ.

[ZENSMACK89]

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.

[3bodyproblem]

NIST has no authority. Do you think they have the power to dicatate thought? They have respect, it's earned. I don't have the cred to even contribute to what they have to say. I accept this and I strive to learn more. You need to access what NIST is, and what they have done, then make comment. It's about respect for people who have done, from people who haven't. At least I can acknowledge my place in this universe, they tell me this is part of what they call "Wisdom".

[ZENSMACK89]

NIST has no authority. Do you think they have the power to dicatate thought? They have respect, it's earned. I don't have the cred to even contribute to what they have to say. I accept this and I strive to learn more. You need to access what NIST is, and what they have done, then make comment. It's about respect for people who have done, from people who haven't. At least I can acknowledge my place in this universe, they tell me this is part of what they call "Wisdom".

Apparently they hold an authority over you in the form of your blind faith. They are your Emperor and you think their new clothes are so neat even though you can't really see any.

[3bodyproblem]

Hmm...how so? Because you know I think this and that about NIST? Zen, you're playing in a new league here, your blanket statements have no meaning. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks the way you think they do here. You see you're trying to extend motive to what they fine people at NIST arrived at. This isn't the case. You'd have to show me that all the contributors were "In on it" in order for this to be true. Good Luck. Are there shortcomings in the NIST report? You bet. But were they deliberate? Tell me how so.

[Corsair 115]

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.Well, there are some rather knowledgeable folks listed on the NIST's reports credits.

Or are you saying simply because NIST itself is in some fashion an arm of the government it's automatically untrustworthy? If so, then does that mean you also automatically don't trust the Census Bureau, CDC, USGS, NASA, NOAA, EIA, SEC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, GAO, NARA, or FDIC, just to name a few government agencies?

[ZENSMACK89]

Hmm...how so? Because you know I think this and that about NIST? Zen, you're playing in a new league here, your blanket statements have no meaning. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks the way you think they do here. You see you're trying to extend motive to what they fine people at NIST arrived at. This isn't the case. You'd have to show me that all the contributors were "In on it" in order for this to be true. Good Luck. Are there shortcomings in the NIST report? You bet. But were they deliberate? Tell me how so.

All I see here is a bunch of excuses and apologies for the obvious conflict of interest APOLLO20 pointed out in some of the people on the NIST team. It reminds me of a couple of weeks ago when the Dr. Quintiere thing surfaced about him calling for an independent review of the NIST report because of among other things....

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

There weren’t many people here on JREF who wanted to talk about those things though. All they wanted to do was point to how Quintiere didn't endorse an inside job theory as if that's the only point that matters as far as the NIST investigation goes.

You replied to my comment asking "how so"? I'm just wondering in light of Quinteres comments and the obvious conflicts of interest why all the apologies and excuses from a bunch of self proclaimed critical thinkers?

[ZENSMACK89]

Well, there are some rather knowledgeable folks listed on the NIST's reports credits.

Or are you saying simply because NIST itself is in some fashion an arm of the government it's automatically untrustworthy? If so, then does that mean you also automatically don't trust the Census Bureau, CDC, USGS, NASA, NOAA, EIA, SEC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, GAO, NARA, or FDIC, just to name a few government agencies?

No I didn't say that. Got a reply for what I did say?

[PhantomWolf]

Apparently they hold an authority over you in the form of your blind faith. They are your Emperor and you think their new clothes are so neat even though you can't really see any.

Well you know, when you can start pointing out actual errors in their work we might take you seriously. Until then all you have is :talk006:

[Corsair 115]

No I didn't say that. Got a reply for what I did say?Perhaps you're confused, let me refresh your memory. The comment of yours I was replying to was:

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.


So what exactly was the kind of reply you were looking for in regards to your comment quoted above?

[ZENSMACK89]

Well you know, when you can start pointing out actual errors in their work we might take you seriously. Until then all you have is :talk006:
No what I have is a sample of real critical thinking ...

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

And then one of many samples of name calling in place of facts...

"When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT." - PhantomWolf

BTW...

phantom also fantom n. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.

Is that why you like the NIST report? You like Phantoms do you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Perhaps you're confused, let me refresh your memory. The comment of yours I was replying to was:




So what exactly was the kind of reply you were looking for in regards to your comment quoted above?
I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?

[Hokulele]

I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?


I have read the entire NIST report (around 10,000 pages). Have you?

There are a few places where I think they could have done more, and one or two questions I do have on some of their conclusions which I have discussed with people I know. However, I do not believe that these minor points in any way devalue the rest of the report. The reason why I have not yet posted these questions on an open forum is that many people with the so-called truth movement will see any flaw as an excuse to throw out the entire body of work. I have no interest in contributing anything that could possibly be used by people with such a flawed view of the way science works.

[Dr Adequate]

So, let's see. An engineer says that the Towers were even more likely to collapse if hit by a plane than NIST has admitted ... and this supports the Troof how, exactly? Apollo20? Anyone? Do explain.

[Apollo20]

Anyone who has visited this and certain other 9/11 conspiracy forums has surely noticed the same old coterie of posters spouting the same old mantra that no qualified engineer or scientist has come up with a legitimate criticism of the impeccable NIST REPORT. What criticisms there are, come only from goof-balls, loony-tunes, teenagers, Bush-haters, etc, etc.... Hence, so these posters maintain, the NIST REPORT stands unchallenged and unrefuted as the one and only TRUTH about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

So when a real scientist or engineer does in fact step up to bat and makes a point or two that hints of criticism of NIST, the ever vigilant NISTIAN APOLOGISTS call FOUL!

Thus any scientist or engineer who has the temerity to so much as utter a single word of doubt about 9/11 is branded by the NISTIAN thought police as incorrect in his thinking: a poor researcher who is ill-informed and easily refuted. This is apparently a self-evident TRUTH simply because the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS say so, and these folks know best because they have received enlightenment from the genius scientists and engineers at NIST. They have read the "GOOD BOOK" - all 10,000 pages of it - and accept NIST as the one true GOSPEL!

So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?

[twinstead]

So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?

I challenge you to find one person on this site who thinks the NIST is perfect. As you must know, it's not about who challenges them, or even that its being challenged, but WHY the NIST is being 'challenged'.

It is beneath you to suggest that Quintere's critizism, for example, is of the same type as Wood's. What is your motive for lumping Quintere, Astaneh, etc with Jones and Wood? You can't tell the difference?

Therefore, I challenge you to find one TRULY qualified expert, who has studied ALL the evidence of the collapses, who will come out officially and say the buildings could not have collapsed the way NIST describes.

Heck, you could be considered in that category in many ways. Even with your criticism of the NIST report, do you think that the building collapses are impossible they way the report describes them?

[Dave Rogers]

So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?

Yes, I think you're missing something.

We all recognise (I hope) that the NIST report was not written to refute lunatic conspiracy theories. When we use it for that purpose, there is a specific line of argument that it's used to counter. That line of argument is that the WTC towers could not possibly have collapsed without explosives being used. The NIST report demonstrates that collapse without explosives is not only possible but entirely reasonable. When it's criticised by conspiracy theorists, the tenor of their criticisms is that the entire report and the investigation leading to it have no basis in reality whatsoever, and that the experts consulted by NIST fabricated evidence and calculations wholesale in order to prove a completely impossible hypothesis. This is unwarranted and libellous, and merits nothing but contempt.

There is, however, another type of criticism of NIST, which asserts that the precise mechanism proposed by NIST differs in minor ways from the actual collapse mechanism of the towers (minor ways, in this context, meaning that the root causes were still some combination of fire and impact damage), and that these differences are significant in determining how future buildings can be constructed more safely. These are sensible and responsible criticisms from sensible and responsible individuals, and merit careful consideration. Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are in a different world from Jones and Wood, and I hope everyone on the non-CT side of the debate is well aware of that.

Unfortunately, the level of polarisation in the CT debate is such that conspiracy theorists seize on criticisms of the detail of the NIST model and present them as wholesale refutations of everything in the NIST report. At this point it is necessary to defend the general sweep of the NIST model, as the dishonest tactics of conspiracy theorists lead them to claim that any revision of a part of the NIST model, however small, invalidates the entire report and investigation.

This is a perfect example, in fact, of how the conspiracy theorists are attempting, wittingly or unwittingly, to stifle open debate of any issues concerning 9-11 other than their own groundless fantasies. The fact that some of us get drawn into this over-polarised debate is unfortunate but understandable, as is the fact that we can then be rather over-dogmatic in our defense of the NIST report.

No, the NIST model is not a perfect description, and our defense of it sometimes goes beyond what is reasonable; but compared to Steven Jones's papers it is a model of clarity and precision.

Dave

[twinstead]

Thanks Dave. You put that very well.

[jaydeehess]

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.No I didn't say that. Got a reply for what I did say?[I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?

Gee, Zens, you get that a lot.
Perhaps its because rather than actually say what you mean you assume that others can read your mind.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

IF we were discussing your papers, I would be the same way. If Dylan or someone else without proper qualifications started to Bash your paper without scientific merit to back it up, I would call foul, and slam them for it. Likewise, if legitimate scientists questioned your reports and had good science to back it, I would have to give it consideration.

I have contended that Quintere, and now Astaneh may have valid concerns and points. I think you paint with too wide a brush, which is the very thing you and others here have accused us of doing.

In terms of what issues I have with NIST, now, after hearing issues raised by other QUALIFIED individuals, includes aspects of the collapse involving alternative materials contributing to the heat and energy of the collapse. I think that others have expressed concerns regarding other aspects they feel NIST did not address sufficiency, but as to date have seen no evidence that it was within their mandate to do so.

TAM:)

[boloboffin]

Apollo, though you probably have me on ignore:

You love to make us sound religious in devotion to the NIST gospel. When a real scientist has a problem with NIST that he sets out scientifically, we listen.

And then there's Richard Gage:

When you come up on a 9/11 debunker or government official that says, "We've already looked into that, that's not necessary," use the force and the power of the honoring of the dead in this building to give you the inspiration to move through this resistance that you're going to face in the world as you tell your friends about this story, and as they think you're crazy because they haven't been through this presentation, they haven't seen the evidence. They have to see the evidence. You have to send them a video, a DVD, a link to my website which will have this video on it. Use the honoring -- use the force of the honoring of the fallen ones to get to the truth.

That's a direct quote from his two hour presentation on 9/11 truth. Yet WE'RE the ones who are the religious zealots here? Riiiiiight.

[Totovader]

Anyone who has visited this and certain other 9/11 conspiracy forums has surely noticed the same old coterie of posters spouting the same old mantra that no qualified engineer or scientist has come up with a legitimate criticism of the impeccable NIST REPORT. What criticisms there are, come only from goof-balls, loony-tunes, teenagers, Bush-haters, etc, etc.... Hence, so these posters maintain, the NIST REPORT stands unchallenged and unrefuted as the one and only TRUTH about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

So when a real scientist or engineer does in fact step up to bat and makes a point or two that hints of criticism of NIST, the ever vigilant NISTIAN APOLOGISTS call FOUL!

Thus any scientist or engineer who has the temerity to so much as utter a single word of doubt about 9/11 is branded by the NISTIAN thought police as incorrect in his thinking: a poor researcher who is ill-informed and easily refuted. This is apparently a self-evident TRUTH simply because the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS say so, and these folks know best because they have received enlightenment from the genius scientists and engineers at NIST. They have read the "GOOD BOOK" - all 10,000 pages of it - and accept NIST as the one true GOSPEL!

So, are all you NISTIANS out there asserting that Lane, Quintere, Astaneh, Cherepanov et al. are right up there with Jones and Wood.... demented souls who blaspheme the holy word of NIST and are therefore to be despised and rejected of men...... Or am I missing something?

This is all you do- you set up this whopping strawman so you can continue character assassinations and then whine about it over and over and over. As MANY have pointed out, there are no examples of this in this forum that you can point to. You will not find a single person here who claims that Astaneh is equivalent to Wood- and that strawman is so absurd that it shows what you're really after: you are the one who is what you are describing. You absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says- only for the fact that it is NIST. You have no counter- except to attack the people that agree with the most complete, scientific, and well-researched study to date by claiming that they're "NISTIANS"- as if that's sufficient.

I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do. You're full of it- and I'm betting you know it. Of course- you've ignored similar challenges many times- so I guess that was more rhetorical than anything.

[ZENSMACK89]

I have read the entire NIST report (around 10,000 pages). Have you?

Yes I have.

There are a few places where I think they could have done more, and one or two questions I do have on some of their conclusions which I have discussed with people I know. However, I do not believe that these minor points in any way devalue the rest of the report. The reason why I have not yet posted these questions on an open forum is that many people with the so-called truth movement will see any flaw as an excuse to throw out the entire body of work. I have no interest in contributing anything that could possibly be used by people with such a flawed view of the way science works.


And you see nothing wrong with this? You read a 10,000 page report and will only discuss what you feel is good about it out of fear that if you bring up what you feel might be viewed as a criticism someone (your declared enemy apparently) will take that criticism and run with it ? Did you make the decision to only discuss what you consider the good parts before or after you read it?

In any case at least part of your endorsement of NIST and reluctance to openly criticize it is based in fear. Well now, that's some view on how science works.

[Totovader]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

My point: Wood and Astaneh-Asl are nowhere close. The criticism that real scientists bring to the table is of tremendous benefit. Criticism of NIST, et al is not forbidden, it's encouraged. That's what science is- and someone who is a scientist should know that.

[ZENSMACK89]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

My point: Wood and Astaneh-Asl are nowhere close. The criticism that real scientists bring to the table is of tremendous benefit. Criticism of NIST, et al is not forbidden, it's encouraged. That's what science is- and someone who is a scientist should know that.



I have read the entire NIST report (around 10,000 pages). Have you?

There are a few places where I think they could have done more, and one or two questions I do have on some of their conclusions which I have discussed with people I know. However, I do not believe that these minor points in any way devalue the rest of the report. The reason why I have not yet posted these questions on an open forum is that many people with the so-called truth movement will see any flaw as an excuse to throw out the entire body of work. I have no interest in contributing anything that could possibly be used by people with such a flawed view of the way science works.

Maybe you two should talk.

[Totovader]

Maybe you two should talk.

I don't see how that helps your case, Zensmack. If anything- that confirms what I have been talking about.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe you two should talk.
What an incredible demonstration of ignorance of the scientific methodology on your part.

[slyjoe]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

NO.

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

YES.

My point: Wood and Astaneh-Asl are nowhere close. The criticism that real scientists bring to the table is of tremendous benefit. Criticism of NIST, et al is not forbidden, it's encouraged. That's what science is- and someone who is a scientist should know that.

AGREED. See my sig :)

[Corsair 115]

I was looking for some critical thinking on the NIST report. Is there anything you don’t like about it?Are the folks who worked on the NIST report not experts, a.k.a. authorities, in their respective fields? If so, then why are you so hung up on "the authority of NIST"?

[ZENSMACK89]

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

[TjW]

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

I think you have the cart before the horse. There's no obligation to criticize the NIST report. There is something of an obligation that any criticism be well-founded.

But I'll criticize the NIST report:
They could have printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges. I like blue paper with gilt edges. It would have been better if they'd printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges, instead of just releasing it as pdf files.

Sure, I could print it on blue paper with gilt edges myself, but that's too much work. They should have done it for me, because that's what I like.

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you have the cart before the horse. There's no obligation to criticize the NIST report. There is something of an obligation that any criticism be well-founded.

But I'll criticize the NIST report:
They could have printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges. I like blue paper with gilt edges. It would have been better if they'd printed the NIST report on blue paper with gilt edges, instead of just releasing it as pdf files.

Sure, I could print it on blue paper with gilt edges myself, but that's too much work. They should have done it for me, because that's what I like.
I agree. In fact they could have used some of that blue paper with gilt edges to explain the collapse itself instead of the invisible paper, ink, they did use.

[ZENSMACK89]

Are the folks who worked on the NIST report not experts, a.k.a. authorities, in their respective fields? If so, then why are you so hung up on "the authority of NIST"?
Because much of the discussion here on JREF about the NIST report seems to be based on their authority, or expertise, or how many pages the report was, or how much money they spent on it, etc. etc. etc., and less about what it actually asserts with its theory of the collapse initiation, the possible conflicts of interests, and their avoidance of certain aspects or possibilities.

This though flawed thinking in my opinion is a very honest statement from Hokulele…

There are a few places where I think they could have done more, and one or two questions I do have on some of their conclusions which I have discussed with people I know. However, I do not believe that these minor points in any way devalue the rest of the report. The reason why I have not yet posted these questions on an open forum is that many people with the so-called truth movement will see any flaw as an excuse to throw out the entire body of work. I have no interest in contributing anything that could possibly be used by people with such a flawed view of the way science works.

[Dave Rogers]

I agree. In fact they could have used some of that blue paper with gilt edges to explain the collapse itself instead of the invisible paper, ink, they did use.

So what's your well-researched criticism of NIST?

Dave

[Totovader]

I agree. What's your well-researched criticism of NIST?


Red herring.

[Totovader]

Because much of the discussion here on JREF about the NIST report seems to be based on their authority, or expertise, or how many pages the report was, or how much money they spent on it, etc. etc. etc., and less about what it actually asserts with its theory of the collapse initiation, the possible conflicts of interests, and their avoidance of certain aspects or possibilities.

Since you claim that "much of the discussion here on JREF" is actually appeal to authority, etc- could you perhaps provide 10 examples of where you see this is the case, instead of just your assertion in a desperate attempt to avoid the facts?

[T.A.M.]

ZEN:

The NIST Report was a summary of the findings of a group of scientists and engineers tasked with investigating the collapse of the towers for the purpose of BUILDING PERFORMANCE.

They have since stated that once the collapse began, it was not going to stop or hault, so examining the ACTUAL COLLAPSE ITSELF would be a waste of money and time in their opinion. Given their mandate, and their premise that the collapse once initiated was unstoppable, please provide me with evidence that points to a different conclusion.

TAM:)

[ZENSMACK89]

Since you claim that "much of the discussion here on JREF" is actually appeal to authority, etc- could you perhaps provide 10 examples of where you see this is the case, instead of just your assertion in a desperate attempt to avoid the facts?

Here's just a few right from this thread

Well, there are some rather knowledgeable folks listed on the NIST's reports credits.

Or are you saying simply because NIST itself is in some fashion an arm of the government it's automatically untrustworthy? If so, then does that mean you also automatically don't trust the Census Bureau, CDC, USGS, NASA, NOAA, EIA, SEC, FCC, CPSC, FDA, GAO, NARA, or FDIC, just to name a few government agencies?

You need to access what NIST is, and what they have done, then make comment. It's about respect for people who have done, from people who haven't. At least I can acknowledge my place in this universe, they tell me this is part of what they call "Wisdom".

So they had very little control over the report anyways. Personally I would WANT people involved in the designing to be on the team because they'd likely have knowledge about the way the buildings would react and why certain things were done that outsiders wouldn't have. As long as the leadership of the group was independant and wasn't overly swayed by those few team members, I don't see any issues. Once more it seems that Apollo 20 is making mountains out of mole hills.

Given their mandate, and their premise that the collapse once initiated was unstoppable, please provide me with evidence that points to a different conclusion.TAM:)

[ZENSMACK89]

Red herring.


Really?

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

[DGM]

Did I miss the part when these people that criticized NIST disagreed with their final conclusion? I don't remember the CD report.

[Apollo20]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.

[rwguinn]

Apollo20:
Re your post above
"That vessel is suffused with that which doth make things grow"

Link to or Show any evidence, studies/papers which show that zinc embrittlement would occur in the timeframs of 1 hour, to a sufficient depth in steel to cause loss of structural strength greater than that of heat.
Link to or Show papers/studies that show the spray-on heat shielding will maintain its adhesion to steel when hit by a 600-800 fps stream of debris and/or fluid.
Link to or show any documentation requiring or requesting NIST to document any occurence post collapse initiation.
Link to or show any evidence of, or mechanism that will allow zinc from sagging floor pans to work its way uphill to reach to column bases supporting said floor pan (You thought I'd forgotten that evasion you have made continuously, did you not?)

Show us ANYTHING. So far you're batting zero.

[Hokulele]

Yes I have.


Congratulations (sincerely, not sarcastically). That makes you one of the few in the truth movement who have.

And you see nothing wrong with this? You read a 10,000 page report and will only discuss what you feel is good about it out of fear that if you bring up what you feel might be viewed as a criticism someone (your declared enemy apparently) will take that criticism and run with it ? Did you make the decision to only discuss what you consider the good parts before or after you read it?


Wrong. I stated that I choose not to raise the questions in a public forum. I have discussed these with several people, including a self-proclaimed truth member, face to face. The main reason is partially due to the reality that people like you choose to cherry-pick and distort statements made here just as you did to my quote in your reponses to me and to Totovader.

In any case at least part of your endorsement of NIST and reluctance to openly criticize it is based in fear. Well now, that's some view on how science works.


Fear? No, disgust. Disgust at the very tactics you have used to prove your point.

[Oxigen]

Yes, If they had used blue pages with gilt edges, it may have been more believable.

[Hokulele]

Happy birthday slyjoe!

[Totovader]

Here's just a few right from this thread

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

[slyjoe]

Happy birthday slyjoe!

Thanks Hokulele. Just getting ready to go sip some nectar of the gods (that don't exist) ;)

[Totovader]

Really?

Yes, really.

I'm not sure why you need clarification regarding this question since I answered it in the same post. Perhaps if you read the post again it would clear up any confusion you may have on the issue.

[Totovader]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Wait a minute, are you saying you're being accused of something that is so "blatently" untrue that it's laughable?

Racist.

Not very productive, is it- to just go around and say that all "JREFERS" are "NISTIANS" and are incapable of discussing any criticism of the NIST study, et al.

You continue to make these claims- despite the fact that you have been corrected far too many times for it to still be laughable. Act like an adult. Act like a scientist.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.

Um... that's great. Was that the point of the question? Or was the point of the question to address your attack on an entire group of people in an amazing strawman? Are you just going to ignore your mistake (again) or are you going to address it and stop accusing an entire group of people of things they aren't doing?

You can't possibly believe both to be true- it's a contradiction. You cannot be willing to discuss what you see as problems with the NIST study if you honestly believe that "all JREFers are NISTIAN". That type of generalization is best left to the politicos if you ask me, but it seems to be your main contention with this forum... a forum you repeatedly try to attack at the same time you're looking for a discussion. If you ask me- that just looks like a pretty pathetic scapegoat: when people point out you're wrong, you just retreat back to the comfort of making blanket assertions about an entire group of people which clearly are not true.

I don't get it- so please address the points I brought up before we go into what you really could be criticizing.

[T.A.M.]

I think it boils down to this...

If your pov is that NIST should have been a forensic investigation of the WTC attacks, than it leave some elements distinctly unexplored/not dealt with...

If you consider the NIST report an investigation into the causation of the collapse of the WTCs, and the science surrounding it, then it has done a fine job in most areas, with some areas left wanting.

I tend to fall into the latter.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Totovader:

You say that I "absolutely refuse to accept anything NIST says", Well, this is so blatently untrue that I just have to laugh.... I have said before, and I will say again, I believe NIST scientists do a fine job on many issues.

Anyway, now that we all agree that the NIST Report is NOT beyond criticism, let's hear some criticisms. Here's a few for starters:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unkown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offer no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of the chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts expected for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the torsional motion of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the impact of the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic dampers or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.

Perhaps you could submit your concerns to the Union of Concerned Scientists, or, better yet, to an analogous organization of engineers? I kind of doubt that there is one, though. OTOH, UCS must have engineers, as they are concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.

Considering the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it looks like we need a Union of Concerned Engineers. Governments at various levels are not doing their jobs ito maintaining infrastructure, as became common knowledge after the Minneapolis catastrophe.

While I certainly don't agree with many things you have said re 911 collapses, I believe that you're sincere. Is your sincerity likely to be honored at JREF? Indeed, are you honoring your own life, when there are probably many scientists and engineers who, like yourself, are more interested in using their talents for public service? (As opposed to nit-picking and superficial 'apologetics', e.g.)

Perhaps you should start an NGO which focuses on engineering safety issues. Then you could get $$ from foundations, which you are going to need to do many of the kinds of work you can't do, otherwise.

I wonder where UCS gets funds from. I really don't know much about them - mostly I know of them from interviews of their members on Michio Kaku's 'Explorations in Understanding'.

[TerryUK]

Not very productive, is it- to just go around and say that all "JREFERS" are "NISTIANS"

The above quote was part of your reply to Apollo20.

Can you show exactly where he says all JREFERS ?

Or have you made it up?

[Totovader]

The above quote was part of your reply to Apollo20.

Can you show exactly where he says all JREFERS ?

Or have you made it up?

The above quote was the result of watching Apollo20 make comments for the last couple months, not just in this thread. If you feel that I have made it up, you can search through his threads yourself, or perhaps just realize that he didn't deny it.

[TerryUK]

The above quote was the result of watching Apollo20 make comments for the last couple months, not just in this thread. If you feel that I have made it up, you can search through his threads yourself, or perhaps just realize that he didn't deny it.

In post #121 of this thread, you wrote to Apollo20 : " I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do.

So, what does "just claimed" mean?

Well, it means just now, i.e. in this thread, does it not?
So, show me where, or have you made it up?

[TerryUK]

This is all you doI challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do. You're full of it- and I'm betting you know it.


Where did he say this?
ARE YOU LYING?

[Totovader]

In post #121 of this thread, you wrote to Apollo20 : " I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do.

So, what does "just claimed" mean?

Well, it means just now, i.e. in this thread, does it not?
So, show me where, or have you made it up?

Perhaps you need to read the post again- the "just claimed" was referring to what he said about JREFERs- so I suggest you look in the post before, and in his previous posts.

Again, Apollo20 isn't disputing this. He's written extensively on what "JREFERS" do- and has been praised by the nut community for that work.

[Totovader]

Where did he say this?
ARE YOU LYING?

No, I am not lying.

And no, I am not going to repeat myself. See previous post.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend, here- but if you were even slightly familiar with what Greening has said, then you wouldn't need to keep asking me if I'm lying.

[3bodyproblem]

Zen: There will never be "No conflict of interest" in the conspiracy world. You need to look at the body of work and adress it instead of the contributors. From what I have read and understood of it, NCSTAR appears to be technically correct, the methods were appropriate, and made no excuses for its apparent short comings (as far as the fires and exactly matching the experimental and collected data). It wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been, I agree. NCSTAR could have been a 10 year study, with 500 scientists from around the world, working around the clock. It could have been 100 000 pages, single spaced and typed on both sides. It could have been alot of things in many peoples minds I guess. If you want to go after the contributors, could you find people willing to state on the record that NIST had more data that was supressed? Can you find anyone from NIST that says "We had a really good idea about...but when we brought it up we were hushed and told not to pursue it"?

[metamars]

Considering the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it looks like we need a Union of Concerned Engineers. Governments at various levels are not doing their jobs ito maintaining infrastructure, as became common knowledge after the Minneapolis catastrophe.



I guess I should have added that a cousin of mine, who is an architect, has told me that many business buildings are so cheaply made, they will not last 50 years. Thus, I see a need for lots of preventative, as well as post-mortem analysis in the not-too-distant future.

[TerryUK]

No, I am not lying.

And no, I am not going to repeat myself. See previous post.



You haven't - and can't - show me where he said "all JREFERs"

I know you've made it up, because he didn't ever say that.

Unlike you, Apollo20 knows about accuracy and unlike you he knows what he's talking about.

[Totovader]

You haven't - and can't - show me where he said "all JREFERs"

I know you've made it up, because he didn't ever say that.

Unlike you, Apollo20 knows about accuracy and unlike you he knows what he's talking about.

I haven't but won't- because it's a waste of my time. All you have to do is go to google and type in "NISTIAN"- a term coined by Greening to see what he has said about "JREFERS".

He obviously did say that- or at the very least implied that because he continues to refer to JREFERS. Why you are trying to wedge such a ridiculous issue is beyond me, but it appears that you're doing exactly the opposite of what he did- and what he accuses all JREFERS of doing: an appeal to authority.

Slick- that takes some guts to try and defend someone by doing exactly what they're having a hissy fit about. Difference being: I can POINT to where you just did it. Greening, Zensmack, etc- cannot give an example of JREFERS doing this.

Zing.

[Totovader]

Perhaps- if you were able to go to google and do a search for NISTIAN, you would find jewels of knowledge from Greening like this one:

Pomeroo:

"Have you (meaning me) been attacked on this forum for offering that insight?

I must have missed it."

YUP, missed it you did!

Have you not been paying attention or noticed:

The JREFERs are good examples of messeger shooters, who assume every criticism of NIST signals a TWOOFER in the house. NISTIAN soldiers who march straight into denial mode whenever they are challenged...

These JREFERs show, time and again, how well they know the NIST Report, and are able to quote it, Chapter and Verse..... but FLIP-FLOP when faced with the great UNKNOWN territory of WTC collapse information OUTSIDE of the areas studied by NIST.

These NISTIAN APOLOGISTS say that if NIST didn't study it, it's not worth studying, or NIST probably DID study it, but found nothing of interest worth reporting.

In fact, when confronted with evidence of interesting information NOT addressed by NIST they offer endless, nit-picking arguments rather than concede one single lousy point to a perceived Twoofer... And about this time the comments start from the Argwiners, Tounge Lashers and other assorted Enigmas and Pardalian Variations, that I am childish, or "a failed scientist", or whatever...

So Pomeroo, may I suggest that until some JREFERs cease and desist with such behavior, then let the chips (including the one I allegedly bear on my shoulder), fall where they may.

And PLEASE do not even try to apologize for the behavior of your compadres!

P.S. I would gladly share my research with you, but not until something changes around here.


Or maybe even his most popular post:


I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

You might even stumble across this "discovery":


Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

The last one seems to contradict the first two, eh?

[TerryUK]

He obviously did say that- or at the very least implied that because he continues to refer to JREFERS.

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.

[Totovader]

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.

You didn't read my post- I said that at the very least he implied it. He certainly didn't correct it if it was my mistake. Plus, the quotes I just gave you- which you should have been capable of getting on your own- show that Apollo20 has made these statements repeatedly.

Since you continue to make appeals to authority mixed with the personal attacks, you can see that your post deserves to be flagged. "What you have seen" is a debate which you ran away from over a month ago in reference to this very topic. Why I should suddenly take you seriously when you couldn't do a single thing to defend your position there is beyond me. Clinging to the coat-tails of Apollo20 really doesn't help your case.

[TerryUK]

Originally Posted by Apollo20:
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

This sounds almost exactly like something I would post myself.

[rwguinn]

Oh! he only implied it now! Changed your tune?

One day, you'll learn to state things with a little more accuracy.

However, judging by the posts I've seen from you, that day is a long way off.
You are not remotely in the same class as Greening, and I doubt you ever could be, going on what I see of you on this forum.
The statments were accurate.
They were not precise, but they were accurate.
Now, stop trying to derail, or I will report you as as attempting to do so.

ETA:
And we all see how Dr. G makes attempts to justify his criticism with any kind of science at all. So far he has evaded the mechanism for embrittlement question for at least 2 months...

[TerryUK]

"What you have seen" is a debate which you ran away from over a month ago in reference to this very topic.

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL
Often, I have other priorities.



Clinging to the coat-tails of Apollo20 really doesn't help your case.

"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?

[rwguinn]

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL
Often, I have other priorities.





"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?
You were warned.
Reported for attempted derail

[TerryUK]

You were warned.
Reported for attempted derail

Get a life.

[ZENSMACK89]

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

You seem to have a problem identifying authority- you are confusing it with an appeal to authority. The difference being: "the individuals involved in this study are experts, they are knowledgeable- their conclusions are also accurate" versus "the individuals involved in this study are experts, therefore they cannot be challenged".

You claimed the latter was by far the most popular in this forum- I don't see it. Prove your statement is accurate.

I think you would be hard pressed to catch me using the phrase "was by far the most popular" in this forum or anywhere else for that matter. This is what I said ...

Because much of the discussion here on JREF about the NIST report seems to be based on their authority, or expertise, or how many pages the report was, or how much money they spent on it, etc. etc. etc., and less about what it actually asserts with its theory of the collapse initiation, the possible conflicts of interests, and their avoidance of certain aspects or possibilities.

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

So settle it. Prove it. What’s your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect?

[Totovader]

I don't 'run away' from threads! LOL

Often, I have other priorities.

"My case" as you put it doesn't need help.

This is about you, remember?

Sure- of course, the "I have a life" card. That sometimes works... if this were a chat room, maybe?

No- this is not about me, how you feel about me, or how scorned you are by our previous encounters- what this is about (primarily) is the NIST report, and criticism of that report.

If you want to continue to pretend like you have a bone to pick, then maybe you should get back to that thread you claimed to have not run away from. I'll meet you there on the topic which you also attempted to derail. That would be here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90472)

[Totovader]

I think you would be hard pressed to catch me using the phrase "was by far the most popular" in this forum or anywhere else for that matter. This is what I said ...

Nor did I say you used that exact phrase, Mr. Strawman. Interestingly enough, you quotemined yourself... that's got to be a first. I wasn't as concerned with your sugarcoated attacks as I was with some of your more direct ones. Let's take a look at some of those, shall we?

The authority of NIST is all the proof some people need.

Is that why you like the NIST report? You like Phantoms do you?

You were unable to provide any examples where "much of the discussion" was based on an appeal to authority- in fact, when you tried you only demonstrated that the mistake is on your end.

So settle it. Prove it. What’s your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect?

It has been settled- no one here believes that the NIST report is above well-documented, scientific, researched criticism. You only continue to try a red herring because you want to avoid the fact that your accusations hold no water: skeptics are not faith-based... quite the opposite.

[Totovader]

Let's settle this once and for all.

Does anyone here feel that NIST, the NIST report, the Commission and it's report, etc- are beyond criticism?

How about those who feel that a scientific, well-documented, well-researched criticism only helps the scientific movement? Anyone care to agree to that?

My point: Wood and Astaneh-Asl are nowhere close. The criticism that real scientists bring to the table is of tremendous benefit. Criticism of NIST, et al is not forbidden, it's encouraged. That's what science is- and someone who is a scientist should know that.

ZENSMACK: I bolded the part you continue to ignore.

[eeyore1954]

So, let's see. An engineer says that the Towers were even more likely to collapse if hit by a plane than NIST has admitted ... and this supports the Troof how, exactly? Apollo20? Anyone? Do explain.

And don't forget another scientist (James Quintiere, Former Chief NIST Fire Science Division) who was not happy with NIST. He says the towers could have fallen without the fire proofing being removed. He was briefly mentioned on the Loose Change Board but I think that stopped when they saw what he believed.

[Apollo20]

TerryUK:

I think you caught Totovader in a little white one... Nicely done!

By the way, I believe it is pretty obvious the particular brand of JREFer I am referring to... THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE... and their vituperation serves to self identify them!

RUGWINN:

If Al can flow down and around, so can zinc.

IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING

[Totovader]

TerryUK:

I think you caught Totovader in a little white one... Nicely done!

By the way, I believe it is pretty obvious the particular brand of JREFer I am referring to... THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE... and their vituperation serves to self identify them!

RUGWINN:

If Al can flow down and around, so can zinc.

IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING

You think? You're the one that believes it...

So when you refer to JREFERS and NISTIANS, you're not talking about anyone on this board?

Well... that's a relief- here I thought you were inventing a strawman for an entire group of people... as it turns out you were just talking about a small minority of individuals that don't even exist.

[Totovader]

Since you claim that "much of the discussion here on JREF" is actually appeal to authority, etc- could you perhaps provide 10 examples of where you see this is the case, instead of just your assertion in a desperate attempt to avoid the facts?

bump for Zensmack

[Totovader]

I challenge you to find a single person here who would be an example of this nonsense you just claimed "all JREFERS" do. You're full of it- and I'm betting you know it. Of course- you've ignored similar challenges many times- so I guess that was more rhetorical than anything.

bump for Apollo20

[ZENSMACK89]

bump for Zensmack
Sorry. This isn't a one way street where you declare the rules. In other words you are no authority. Now I can give examples all day and you can claim that their not an appeal to an authority but you still haven't back up your big mouth.


What's your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect? Why are you avoiding? Afraid to bite the hand of authority that feeds your whole belief system maybe? That's my proof right there.

[Totovader]

Sorry. This isn't a one way street where you declare the rules. In other words you are no authority. Now I can give examples all day and you can claim that their not an appeal to an authority but you still haven't back up your big mouth.


What's your criticism of NIST? Is it perfect? Why are you avoiding? Afraid to bite the hand of authority that feeds your whole belief system maybe? That's my proof right there.

You made the claim- I've asked you three times to support it now. Since you have been unable to- it's pretty clear you were just making it up to avoid the facts and attack a group of people instead of the argument itself.

I have already provided an answer in regards to the statement I made- it's not avoiding, it's called not granting you a red herring. What you're demanding has nothing to do with the statement I made- it's non-sequitur to my rebuttal, and instead is just an attempt to avoid the issue altogether. How you think that's proof of anything but your own dodging is beyond me.

Perhaps you don't understand this, but the burden of proof is on you to provide that well-researched criticism. You've already been asked to do this and you ignored it. I'm betting you will just continue to do that.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20 and Zensmack:

Your strawman argument has been shown to be just that, so why not give it a rest. You both know very well that the JREF CT subforum does not hold the NIST report as perfect. I doubt, as Toto has asked, that you could find one person who feels the NIST is beyond reproach. Frank, despite numerous concessions by numerous people here that the NIST is imperfect, you continue your own personal campaign to smear the people of this forum, some directly, others indirectly so through your continued bad mouthing of "JREFers" and "NISTIANS" as you have labeled them.

Since you find this forum useless from a scientific pov, why do you bother? Does it relieve tension for you? Does it fill some other need? I haven't said much to you about this lately, as you have been "reasonable", but now it seems you have begun again. I hope this taunting and game playing will once again be short lived.

TerryUK:

Not really sure why you took up the "Greening" defense, but I guess fair is fair, as often times we will stick up for others here. I would advise you to read all of Apollo20's posts, to get a better idea of how long he has been playing this game.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

Ok people, please keep this thread civil, and on topic, or it will be moved to moderated status.

[ZENSMACK89]

Apollo20 and Zensmack:

Your strawman argument has been shown to be just that, so why not give it a rest. You both know very well that the JREF CT subforum does not hold the NIST report as perfect. I doubt, as Toto has asked, that you could find one person who feels the NIST is beyond reproach. Frank, despite numerous concessions by numerous people here that the NIST is imperfect, you continue your own personal campaign to smear the people of this forum, some directly, others indirectly so through your continued bad mouthing of "JREFers" and "NISTIANS" as you have labeled them.

Since you find this forum useless from a scientific pov, why do you bother? Does it relieve tension for you? Does it fill some other need? I haven't said much to you about this lately, as you have been "reasonable", but now it seems you have begun again. I hope this taunting and game playing will once again be short lived.

TerryUK:

Not really sure why you took up the "Greening" defense, but I guess fair is fair, as often times we will stick up for others here. I would advise you to read all of Apollo20's posts, to get a better idea of how long he has been playing this game.

TAM:)

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?

[rwguinn]

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?
"The only perfect person who ever lived got himself nailed to a tree..." author unknown.
Perfection is what we strive for-and never achieve.

[Disbelief]

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?

Use the search function. There have been a number of threads relevant to things people have found wrong, so why start listing them agin in this one.

[Apollo20]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.

[T.A.M.]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.


ok, I am not sure if I am a NISTIAN on your list or not, but I will answer your quibbles...(addressed with their number a the beginning)

1. This is the best available theory at the time. No, of course they did not have any physical evidence to give a percentage for amount of removal of fire proofing removed. I think they based it on the amount of force and subsequent movement of the buildings. There were, IIRC witnesses who said that they observed fireproofing fall off with minimal force (I cannot remember the exact circumstances off the top of my head). They also, likely, worked backwards (I know, not a good way to do things), noting that the buildings did collapse, and that through there modeling, fireproofing would have had to have been removed for the buildings to fall. This, as well as other heat sources contributing has lead to considerable disagreement here, which I think is an area that could use further study.

2. Molten Metal in the towers, to me, is not an issue. If you have a reason why you think the study of it is important to BUILDING SAFETLY, please provide it here.

3. I am not sure about the Chlorine aspect, but they did address the sulfidation, they may not have OFFERED and explanation, as they may not have HAD ONE.

4. I have not studied this area sufficient to comment on whether or not they ADDRESSED the corrosion/erosion effects or not.

5. regarding the allegation of providing CONTRADICTORY theories etc...on tilt, please provide the two contradictory element page numbers...

6. If they did not include torsional energy disipation, and if it is significant in terms of collapse initiation, then they should have.

7. I have stated elsewhere that your theories and investigations into alternate sources of heat via various elements within the buildings is a VALID area that warrants further investigation.

8. I was not aware the welding and steel were distinctly different. If these two factors could potentially have effected the collapse initiation, then it should have been explored and/or explained.

9. Well the truthers would have us believe there was no concrete left to test, appart from that of 60 microns in size, but given I know this to be bullcrap, I would say that you should explain how this would have an effect on either hastening or slowing of the collapse initiation, for this to be relevant.

10. did they conduct an investigation for the use of BEAM WEAPONS? did they conduct an investigation for Thermite? What else should they look for?

11. Not up on this area enough to comment.

12. Perhaps not, but to imply that they should have, indicates that they had the evidence/data, and variables to do so but failed to, and also suggests that it would have had major impact on the analysis of the initiation...is this the case?

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?

No on will ever call me a JREFer but here's an interesting discrepancy that I noticed recently.

In NCSTAR1-5D, NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). This would mean that only 34% of the KE is left to actually damage the building, unless of course the movement of the building caused damage.

I find nowhere else in NIST, including the 1-2 Airplane Impact Analysis series, that this is taken into account. In fact, they compare the NIST results to Wierzbicki's study which applied the entire energy to destroying the airplane and damaging the building and had fairly similar results.

My conclusion is that we have no way to judge the validity of the impact analysis because we are lacking information on how they actually did it.

[Dave Rogers]

No on will ever call me a JREFer

You're a JREFer.

Dave

[Totovader]

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?

On the contrary- you were asserting that many people claim it is perfect- that due to the fact that it was done by experts, it's untouchable. Since you were unable to provide a single example of this, your claim is false.

Additionally, it's not that I (or anyone else for that matter) said that the NIST report is entirely flawed- as skeptics we are necessarily holding the position that science could very easily prove any particular claim within the NIST report to be false- or even less plausible.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand the difference between skepticism and faith. The differences are huge.

[Totovader]

You're a JREFer.

Dave

Only Apollo20 can make that distinction. Everyone else is forbidden from calling anyone a JREFer or NISTian. How he makes that distinction is a complete mystery, however- but it's best left to the Gods, anyway.

[Hokulele]

I'm not looking for one person who claims they don't hold the NIST report as perfect. I've seen this claim that it's not perfect. Now... what's not perfect? Is it an empty claim?


Here is one of the areas that I feel was missed the NIST report.

Early on, they mention the process of alterations based on tenant requests, with a brief discussion of changes made by those occupying multiple floors. These would include private stairwells, other internal dividers (demising walls), or removal of existing dividers. A note was made that when a private survey of code violations was made prior to 2001, nearly all of them involved floors with a single tenant.

The recommendations at the end of the report discuss training for tenants on life safety systems, and seemed to dismiss the liability of tenant-requested alterations. The burden is placed on the property owner to maintain all documentation of modifications made, but there are often documentation ownership issues when it is the tenant initiating and contracting the work.

I feel this should have been addressed in the report.


Seeing this has nothing at all to do with any of the conspiracy theories, but everything to do with building codes and standards, you will probably find it monumentally uninteresting, so cherry-pick away.

[Apollo20]

GregoryUrich:

See my post #185 where I say more or less the same thing as you:

"NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete."

TAM:

I have discussed the tipping anomalies in the NIST Report in a paper on www.911myths.com

Totovader:

When you say "jewels of knowledge from Greening", nice to know my work is appreciated

[Totovader]

Totovader:

When you say "jewels of knowledge from Greening", nice to know my work is appreciated

I would think it would be painfully clear at this point what work is not appreciated and why. Contrary to what you might want to accuse anyone of- your entire body of work is not the discussion, here.

[ZENSMACK89]

Here is one of the areas that I feel was missed the NIST report.

Early on, they mention the process of alterations based on tenant requests, with a brief discussion of changes made by those occupying multiple floors. These would include private stairwells, other internal dividers (demising walls), or removal of existing dividers. A note was made that when a private survey of code violations was made prior to 2001, nearly all of them involved floors with a single tenant.

The recommendations at the end of the report discuss training for tenants on life safety systems, and seemed to dismiss the liability of tenant-requested alterations. The burden is placed on the property owner to maintain all documentation of modifications made, but there are often documentation ownership issues when it is the tenant initiating and contracting the work.

I feel this should have been addressed in the report.


Seeing this has nothing at all to do with any of the conspiracy theories, but everything to do with building codes and standards, you will probably find it monumentally uninteresting, so cherry-pick away.
No, this I think is valid considering all the things the NIST report did cover.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Thanks for the link...I will take a look.

Oh...

Frank can I ask you a question....


Why do you act so abrasive and condescending to the people who post here??

TAM:)

[ZENSMACK89]

No on will ever call me a JREFer but here's an interesting discrepancy that I noticed recently.

In NCSTAR1-5D, NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). This would mean that only 34% of the KE is left to actually damage the building, unless of course the movement of the building caused damage.

I find nowhere else in NIST, including the 1-2 Airplane Impact Analysis series, that this is taken into account. In fact, they compare the NIST results to Wierzbicki's study which applied the entire energy to destroying the airplane and damaging the building and had fairly similar results.

My conclusion is that we have no way to judge the validity of the impact analysis because we are lacking information on how they actually did it.

Yes and this has been address a few time I just can't remember at the moment where and when I originally read about it. In any case it’s something that’s been pointed out by others and of course always leads to how much of the fireproofing would have been sheered off and how much the core would have been damaged depending on what kind of energy was left.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

This might have been one of the things I read not that you would agree with it. This is what Kevin Ryan claims in reference to what might have been left over to remove the fire-proofing...

3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?
The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

•NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *

Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing

For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area

* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT

Here's a debate on the deceleration of the plane if you’re interested with some video overlays…

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html

[DGM]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.
Apollo20;
I'm not qualified to access all of this but I do have an observation.
The critics (you included) have had 2 years to review the findings and scrutinize every little detail. This to me should certainly yield small discrepancies or omissions.
The question I have is was the report in your opinion relatively accurate for the job they were tasked to do?
I know that years from now people will build off of the findings in this report as they should. Is this a good base to do this type of thing?
Bottom line. Were they in your opinion correct in there findings? ( not off by much)

[T.A.M.]

Frank:

Here is the description at 911myths of your "tilting" paper...


Tipping of the Upper Section of WTC2 - did the tilting of the top of WTC2, immediately prior to collapse, really defy the laws of physics, as some might have you believe? Dr Greening explores the issue here. Beware: seriously technical, to be avoided if you’re even slightly math-phobic.

Any chance you can give us a quasi laymen summary of the arguments, and how NIST contradicts itself, for myself, who has good but very old and unused math skills, as well as for others not math inclined?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

•NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *

Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing

For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area


Yes, Kevin Ryan has been telling this lie for some time. I cover it on Page 19 of my whitepaper.

The NIST Report says that the aggregate KE of impacting fragments need to be roughly 1 MJ (actually they say 0.1 to 1 MJ) to shake loose a square meter of SFRM. But this does not mean that the SFRM absorbs all of this energy. The vast majority of energy remains to damage the structure underneath or ricochet the impacting fragments into other SFRM somewhere else.

Kevin Ryan not only uses 1 MJ / m2, disingenuously using the top of the range, but also assumes all of that energy is absorbed. If a three-quarter inch layer of SFRM could do that, we should use it as armor on main battle tanks.

However, since this is "Bash NIST Day," I will add that I don't understand why they used energy and not momentum in the above expression. I believe that momentum is actually the correct quantity, and their use of KE leads to further confusion. Probably has no impact at all on their overall conclusions, though.

[Hokulele]

Bash NIST Day! Can we have one every year? ;)

[Alferd_Packer]

Fire proofing is considered a "friable" building material. That is, you can easily break it loose and crumble it with hand pressure.

Furthermore, one of the key items were the 1" diameter floor truss diagonals. Think about it. a 1" rod with a 1.5" coating of fireproofing on it. from a lateral cross section, the majority of the fireproofing isn't even backed up by steel.

Once those started to buckle, the trusses were toast.

[Regnad Kcin]

By the way, I believe it is pretty obvious the particular brand of JREFer I am referring to... THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE... and their vituperation serves to self identify them!Why don't you name one or two?

...IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND THE ONE EYED MAN IS KINGAgain, you claim to be a scientist, but...

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report...Again, please name a couple. And "they know who they are" is not good enough. I know that much, and I'm not a scientist.

[Apollo20]

His first avowed intent to be a NISTIAN:

NCSTAR 1-5D estimates a value of 1.23 m/s^2 for the average acceleration, and 37.5 x 10^6 Newtons for the average force for WTC 2 during the aircraft impact.

Using Newton's 2nd Law we then have a participating mass of 30.5 x 10 ^6 kg for that part of the building experiencing a dynamic response to the impact.

NCSTAR 1-2 shows that the first translational mode, with a period of ~ 11.5 seconds, and the first torsional mode with a period of ~ 5.2 seconds, were excited.

NCSTAR 1-5A reports that the maximum deflection of the top of WTC 2 (as a result of the aircraft impact) was ~ 0.76 m, and the apparent window spacing varied from 40 inches to ~ 39.8 inches which allows the maximum torsional, (angular), displacement of WTC 2 to be calculated.

From these data it is possible to determine the absorbed elastic energy in a lumped mass model. It is useful to compare this to the maximum elastic strain energy capacity of the structural steel. It appears that the towers could absorb at least 0.5 GJ of elastic strain energy from the aircraft impacts and dissipate it slowly as heat through the visco-elastic dampers... by the way, the damping ratio of the towers was only about 2.5 %.

However this energy sink does not appear to have been included in NIST's floor truss and slab damage calculations, (as described in NCSTAR 1-2), since we discover in NCSTAR 1-6 that NIST could NOT determine acceleration-time histories on structural components from its aircraft impact analysis.

Nevertheless, in the COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, NIST's Report (however wishey-washey) will always be king.

So why worry?

[rwguinn]

I'd like to see the basis for 2.5% damping.
A steel bar/beam/rod/plate, in and of itself, with no joints, is pretty close to 2.5%. Riveted/bolted structure is closer to 5%.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
Nevertheless, in the COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, NIST's Report (however wishey-washey) will always be king.

So why worry?
Having fun burning your strawmen? It's utterly amazing how some content you post can be so interesting and of value; while everything else resembles an old man waving his cane and shouting at the dog to get off his lawn (when the dog is in the neighbor's yard).

[Apollo20]

AW:

Is this the best you can offer!

You really don't like it when I quote the NISTIAN GOSPEL back to you do you?

Let's have some science please....

Rwguinn:

The 2.5 % damping ratio I quote is from the paper by P. Mahmoodi and L. Robertson entitled "Performance of Viscoelastic Dampers in the World Trade Center", ASCE Structures Congress, August 17 - 20 1987, Orlando Fla.

Do you have a better reference?

[chillzero]

A reminder - stop bickering. Stay civil and polite.

[T.A.M.]

You know what, in any land right now NIST is king, you know why....there is nothing out there better at present. Let me know when someone finds an investigation that does a better job of explaining the collapse initiation of the WTCs...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

AW:

Is this the best you can offer!

You really don't like it when I quote the NISTIAN GOSPEL back to you do you?

Let's have some science please....


Quoting the GREENING Gospel back for you Frank, so you can practice what you preach.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Nevertheless, in the COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, NIST's Report (however wishey-washey) will always be king.

So why worry?
So when will you begin your experiment that will prove that the shredded pieces of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph cannot dislodge spray-on fireproofing from a steel truss?

[rwguinn]

AW:

Is this the best you can offer!

You really don't like it when I quote the NISTIAN GOSPEL back to you do you?

Let's have some science please....

Rwguinn:

The 2.5 % damping ratio I quote is from the paper by P. Mahmoodi and L. Robertson entitled "Performance of Viscoelastic Dampers in the World Trade Center", ASCE Structures Congress, August 17 - 20 1987, Orlando Fla.

Do you have a better reference?
Since I don't have ready access to the paper, I can't look it up, and I am away from my references right now. Will get back on that this evening.
However, I have a lot of trouble believing an active damping system would be as low as steel itself.
Are you sure the number quoted is damping, as % of critical? Many times analysts will state "Q" as damping, where Q=1/2z, with z being the ratio of actual damping to critical damping. I run into it every day, and many equations use Q instead of z (Miles' equation for random vibration (X''=((pi/2)*Q*f*ASD(f))^.5) is a typical example I see a lot)
If the value is actually Q, then damping is 20%, which is closer to what I would expect.

[Max Photon]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST prevaricate about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.


13.) NIST fails to explain WTC2's 10 minute metal fire seen burning at Column 301, 2/3 up the Floor 81 window.

14.) NIST struggles to explain the 7 major WTC2 smoke releases, all with timings of 1 minute plus or minus a few seconds.

15.) NIST does not explain the numerous WTC2 "pressure pulses" and "smoke puffs" that zip across the facade reminiscent of a steam pipe organ.

16.) NIST - in a disjointed manner - says that the WTC2's smoke releases, pressure pulses, smoke puffs, fire flare-ups, debris falling, metal flows, and hanging objects seen through open windows changing locations, are correlated, and probably related to a common underlying source, yet the NISTies shrink from an explanation.

17.) NIST ignores the white flashes on the facades (that Max Photon says are from thermite-dusted shock-tube).

18.) NIST does not explain the two grey "wires" seen attached to one of recovered steel member N8's floor truss seats.

19) NIST examined no perimeter panels exposed to fire from WTC2's fire-affected zones on the east and north faces, despite the utterly bizarre descriptions of the highly unusual fire behaviors of WTC2.

20.) NIST does not provide a good explanation for WTC2's magic fire in the 81/NE corner.

21.) NIST never sent Max Photon a fruit basket. Instead, they told him to FAQ off, then referred him here.

---

[Totovader]

Here's a fun fact for you "NIST didn't answer a question I never asked" folks:

NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Technology.

A gold star to the first person that can tell us why that's relevant.

[T.A.M.]

1. NIST does not address the dancing israelis
2. NIST does not address UFOs
3. NIST does not address Leprachauns.
4. NIST does not give out fruit baskets, as per NWO order 123-D

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

4. NIST does not give out fruit baskets, as per NWO order 123-DWait, wait, wait, when did that change? I never got the memo about that!

[T.A.M.]

it was sent to your "corsair115_misc@NWO.com" account silly...

TAM;)

[Alferd_Packer]

7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.

What would the degradation of the dampers have done? They were nothing more than fancy rubber bands.

http://www.debunking911.com/sn1.jpg

more photos here: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Why would they have applied fireproofing to the dampers? I'm sure they were covered with overspray during the original application, but you don't seriously think that the SFRM would have stayed attached, do you?

[Max Photon]

---

No...wait...I found the fruit basket.




Now I understand why they say:


Time flies like the wind,

But fruit flies like bananas.

---

[T.A.M.]

better check who sent it to you. Given the directive the NWO gave NIST re:fruit baskets, I'd be suspecting disfruito.

TAM;)

[rwguinn]

What would the degradation of the dampers have done? They were nothing more than fancy rubber bands.

http://www.debunking911.com/sn1.jpg

more photos here: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Why would they have applied fireproofing to the dampers? I'm sure they were covered with overspray during the original application, but you don't seriously think that the SFRM would have stayed attached, do you?

I have no idea where he's going with this. It is a straw man, intended to obfuscate the issue and make the original argument seem intillegent. We might as well argue that the NIST report did not consider the effects of the poo in the toilets.
The dynamics (vibration characteristics) of the building were only significant during the first few seconds after the aircraft hit them, in dissipating what energy was transferred directly to the building as a unit. The dampers are not, repeat, NOT structural in nature--by structural, I mean they carried none of the building loads. They simply acted as the "shock absorbers" on your car do while driving down a good road--they reduced the oscillations on the building to zero over a short time.
The Damping is a true straw man argument. It has nothing to do with what happened.

[Max Photon]

I have no idea where he's going with this. It is a straw man, intended to obfuscate the issue and make the original argument seem intillegent. We might as well argue that the NIST report did not consider the effects of the poo in the toilets.
The dynamics (vibration characteristics) of the building were only significant during the first few seconds after the aircraft hit them, in dissipating what energy was transferred directly to the building as a unit. The dampers are not, repeat, NOT structural in nature--by structural, I mean they carried none of the building loads. They simply acted as the "shock absorbers" on your car do while driving down a good road--they reduced the oscillations on the building to zero over a short time.
The Damping is a true straw man argument. It has nothing to do with what happened.



Ahem....


Thermite, wrapped in paper and black plastic, placed at gusset seats, and ignited with Max Photon-brand thermite-dusted shock-tube, heat-weakened the connections.


The thermite caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, producing dark black smoke, which masked the white aluminum-oxide ash from the burning thermite.

This is the source of NIST's 7 bizarre one-minute smoke release episodes on the east face of WTC2, not pools of jet fuel (pools of jet fuel...good grief!)


But wait!

The failure of the dampers caused the floors to sag.

The sagging floors are essential to NIST's sissy little pre-engineered narrative that fires caused floors to sag which pulled perimeter columns inward, thereby initiating the collapse of WTC2.


So put a damper on it. Those damn things do matter.


Apollo20, please...proceed.


Max Photon

The guy doing donuts on JREF's front lawn.

---

[Mr. Skinny]

Max Photon

The guy doing donuts on JREF's front lawn.

---
I'll thank you to clean up that powdered sugar off of my grass.

Now away with you before I toss a Max Photon-brand thermite-dusted shock-tube in your direction. :)

[Apollo20]

Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!

[Oxigen]

13.)
21.) NIST never sent Max Photon a fruit basket. Instead, they told him to FAQ off, then referred him here.

---

:) Ithought that was funny!

[DGM]

Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!
Frank;
Wouldn't that only be a problem if the fire proofing was removed from the truss? Considering the damper carries no structural load.

[rwguinn]

Frank;
Wouldn't that only be a problem if the fire proofing was removed from the truss? Considering the damper carries no structural load.
The way I read that, he's postulating the dampers as essentially "Guy wires"!!!!!????? :dl:

[T.A.M.]

Yes thanks Max for helping with Greenings theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the role of planted Thermite in the collapse of the towers...lol

TAM;)

[Civilized Worm]

What is Greening's theory anyway?

[Totovader]

What is Greening's theory anyway?

That "JREFers" are "NISTians".

[WildCat]

What is Greening's theory anyway?
That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.

[rwguinn]

That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.
No.. It is simply that engineers are hacks who can't add 2+2 and get the same answer 2 out of 3.
And they are out to get him.
He has demonstrated that his knowledge of loads, load paths, and design are a real number times
__
\/-1

[rwguinn]

interestingly enough, although zinc embrittlement of carbon steel seems not to be a major concern (all references point to 300 series CRES, or stainless as the problem material with zinc), this (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392004000100015&lng=e&nrm=iso&tlng=e) article mentions Copper embrittlement at 1100 C.
However, this article deals with sustained high-temperature environments as in refineries.

[Apollo20]

Thank you all for your interest in the problem of the aircraft impact momentum transfer to the Twin Towers. Having come this far you must all surely agree that NIST plays fast and loose with the dispositioning of the aircraft impact energy, especially for the side-swipe of UA flight-175 to WTC 2. That's o.k., we are only talking about models after all, but I would just like the self-identified NISTIANS on this forum, (you all know who you are), to admit this one little point and we can move on!

NIST analyse the aircraft impacts in two different ways. In NCSTAR 1-2 the elastic energy absorbed by the towers is all but ignored, while in NCSTAR 1-5D it is included and considered to be distributed over 1/6th of the tower's floors for a total of 18 floors! And yet we know that some of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was converted into the energy of vibration of the whole building! Now the towers had the capacity to absorb some of this energy elastically, but how much? Well, take a look at NIST's data for the post-impact displacements of the window lines of WTC 2, etc, as given in NCSTAR 1-5A. Then consider the torsional stiffness of the tower, (and let's not forget those pesky viscoelastic dampers) ..... and remember NIST says that after the aircraft impact about 10 % of the building mass was moving with a velocity of about 13 m/s. 13 m/s !!!!!!

In the end, none of this story adds up unless the towers were a friggin baseball mit!

[Max Photon]

Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!



Francois,


Another way of looking at it is that the uninsulated visco-elastic dampers presented an exploitable susceptibility.

And exploited they were!


All you NIST-lickers out there ought to do a little readin' in the Good Book of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

If you can't see the attack on the visco-elastic dampers in that report, you are B-L-I-N-D.

(Seven identical episodes of burning pools of jet fuel - each for one minute plus or minus a few seconds.....what a bunch of morons.)


Max

---

Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[pomeroo]

13.) NIST fails to explain WTC2's 10 minute metal fire seen burning at Column 301, 2/3 up the Floor 81 window.

14.) NIST struggles to explain the 7 major WTC2 smoke releases, all with timings of 1 minute plus or minus a few seconds.

15.) NIST does not explain the numerous WTC2 "pressure pulses" and "smoke puffs" that zip across the facade reminiscent of a steam pipe organ.

16.) NIST - in a disjointed manner - says that the WTC2's smoke releases, pressure pulses, smoke puffs, fire flare-ups, debris falling, metal flows, and hanging objects seen through open windows changing locations, are correlated, and probably related to a common underlying source, yet the NISTies shrink from an explanation.

17.) NIST ignores the white flashes on the facades (that Max Photon says are from thermite-dusted shock-tube).

18.) NIST does not explain the two grey "wires" seen attached to one of recovered steel member N8's floor truss seats.

19) NIST examined no perimeter panels exposed to fire from WTC2's fire-affected zones on the east and north faces, despite the utterly bizarre descriptions of the highly unusual fire behaviors of WTC2.

20.) NIST does not provide a good explanation for WTC2's magic fire in the 81/NE corner.

21.) NIST never sent Max Photon a fruit basket. Instead, they told him to FAQ off, then referred him here.

---


If someone were to send Max Photon a fruit basket, would Max be willing to take NIST's thoughtful advice?

[Max Photon]

---

Palmrue,

You missed the joke.

THIS is the fruit basket.

Max

---

[pomeroo]

Thanks Max, you are indeed correct!

The viscoelastic dampers restrained the lower cord of the joist girder and thereby stabilized the concrete diaphragm. The photos of the WTC dampers in Mahmoodi and Robertson's paper show absolutely no SFRM on the dampers. The fires would have pyrolysed the 3M polymer to the point of total failure at relatively low temperatures. This would essentially disconnect the affected floor joist girder from the perimeter wall so that all the compression or tension forces to the diaphragm would go through the top cords only. With no lateral restraints on the bottom cord the joist girder and floor diaphragm would buckle....

The uninsulated viscoelastic dampers were a design flaw!


Aha! So it wasn't the salmon mousse after all!

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

Trivializing the question of possible design flaws in the Twin Towers wont make them go away.

[WildCat]

especially for the side-swipe of UA flight-175 to WTC 2.
Ah, so now 175 sideswiped WTC 2? So it was real-time CGI effects that only made it appear that the entire plane from wingtip to wingtip struck the tower? Perhaps you and Ace Baker could producer a paper on this!

[Max Photon]

Ah, so now 175 sideswiped WTC 2? So it was real-time CGI effects that only made it appear that the entire plane from wingtip to wingtip struck the tower? Perhaps you and Ace Baker could producer a paper on this!


WildCan't,

I believe the point is that even though Flight 175 struck the tower wingtip to wingtip, 175 struck the tower off-center, thereby exciting torsional harmonics.

These harmonics absorbed energy.

These harmonics ought to be accounted for.

Stay tuned!

Max

---

[T.A.M.]

Its a shame when real science gets in the way of resent and bitterness induced fantasy, isn't it people?

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

---


Apollo20 and others,


Just a reminder...

As you discuss the SFRM, the floor trusses, and the visco-elastic dampers, remember that I put forth the notion that demolition planners engineered a phreato-thermatic explosion when Flight 175 struck WTC2.


First, let me clarify a point.

I had first said all of the aluminum from 175 was consumed in the phreato-thermatic explosion.

Allow me to loosen that constraint a bit, so that a significant portion of the aluminum - that portion that was sufficiently fine to burn - was involved in the phreato-thermatic explosion.


Anyway, that said, the phreato-thermatic explosion was a multi-valued function - it served multiple purposes.

One key function of the phreato-thermatic explosion - a function highly relevant to this discussion - was to provide energy to dislodge SFRM from the floor assemblies, including the dampers.


So as you ponder energy deficits or surpluses, keep that extra energy source in mind.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. TAM, too bad you don't have any Kool Max Vax.

---

[Apollo20]

Maxwell:

I am glad to see that someone understands my use of the term "sideswipe"... How else would you excite torsional vibrations in WTC 2?

Oh and TAM, did you know:

A closed mind put's someone (metaphorically at least)

in THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND....

And, by the way, this is a GREAT short story by H. G. Wells that is very apropos vis-avis the JREF NISTIANS who self-identify every time they post here!

This is the last warning to concentrate on the argument, and not those who argue against you. If you cannot discuss the matter without baiting and insulting others, further mod action will follow.

[Totovader]

---


Apollo20 and others,


Just a reminder...

As you discuss the SFRM, the floor trusses, and the visco-elastic dampers, remember that I put forth the notion that demolition planners engineered a phreato-thermatic explosion when Flight 175 struck WTC2.


First, let me clarify a point.

I had first said all of the aluminum from 175 was consumed in the phreato-thermatic explosion.

Allow me to loosen that constraint a bit, so that a significant portion of the aluminum - that portion that was sufficiently fine to burn - was involved in the phreato-thermatic explosion.


Anyway, that said, the phreato-thermatic explosion was a multi-valued function - it served multiple purposes.

One key function of the phreato-thermatic explosion - a function highly relevant to this discussion - was to provide energy to dislodge SFRM from the floor assemblies, including the dampers.


So as you ponder energy deficits or surpluses, keep that extra energy source in mind.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. TAM, too bad you don't have any Kool Max Vax.

---

Apollo20- any thoughts on this? Earlier you said that Max was indeed correct when he was making statements similar to this, and it's a bit confusing on what you're actually agreeing with. Would you be so kind as to clarify...

[Civilized Worm]

That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.


Ah, thanks. And when can we expect his paper outlining this theory?

[Max Photon]

---

Apollo20,


This is a great thread, and you are bringing all kinds of goodies to light.


ChillZero - actually a very warm person - is here help.

She is saying this thread must have a high signal-to-noise ratio, or else.

In other words, she has quieted down the room, and warned EVERYONE that disruptions will not be tolerated.

This means, good doctor, that the microphone is on, and yours.


Why waste time with silly (but fun) child-like resistance?

Perhaps it is time, Apollo20, to stop holding back, and simply incinerate them.


(I brought dark goggles.)


Max Always-Prepared-for-Fireworks Photon

---

[T.A.M.]

Max:

If I had any "Kool-Max-Vax" I would not use it. You are harmless, and while an little insulting at times, for the most part you are good natured.

Apollo20:
I do not consider myself a NISTIAN, nor close-minded. I do consider baseless and factless accusation to be rubbish, and those who encourage it to be promoting lies and slander. I also consider the NIST report, from what I have read (NISTNCSTAR 1, and ALL of the exec summaries) to be the best available, AND the most thorough, by a LONG SHOT.

I also find those who will claim respect and appreciation for the report (and those who sweated for it) on one hand, while berating it, belittling it, and mocking it on the other to be quite...two faced.

TAM:)

[technoextreme]

Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.
Some of those don't make any sense. Maybe one or two people who claimed to see molten metal but the problem being we are quite susceptible to pulling stuff out of think air in extremely life threating situations. Number ten isn't even a point because a good scientist would be able to discount the use of explosives without testing for explosives.
These harmonics absorbed energy.

These harmonics ought to be accounted for.

Stay tuned!

No. If a force is large enough a material will just deform and not act like a spring. In that case you don't have to account for anything.
Perhaps it is time, Apollo20, to stop holding back, and simply incinerate them.


(I brought dark goggles.)


Max Always-Prepared-for-Fireworks Photon
What fireworks? If his theories really had any bearing he'd have them published in a peer reviewed journal.

[Max Photon]

---

Serious readers of this thread...

allow me to make a practical recommendation:


A solid understanding of "the story" told in the NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C WTC2 time-line is essential to fully appreciating - and meaningfully participating in - this thread.


Here is a good way to read, or re-read, the report:


Download the report to your hard drive.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf


Print out the WTC2 time-line pages (there are only about 100 if I remember correctly).


I recommend printing and stapling together 25 pages at a time, just to make handling easier.


The report discuss about 85 photos of WTC2, taken between impact and collapse initiation.

To "read the report", read the paper copy, while having the photo being discussed up on your screen.

Since the report basically is a sequence of photos, plus text describing each photo, it is very helpful, as you read, to draw a line horizontally across the paper copy to separate each photo/text segment.

Also consider writing in the left margin of each segment - in large letters - Fig XX, for fast reference.


The report tells a story. Follow the story.

(It's actually incredibly exciting. And bizarre - very bizarre.)


I think you'll find these recommendations will make your experience fast, fun, thrilling, and productive.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. Thanks for the kind words TAM
---