FREE TAPATALK APP

jaydeehess · 18th June 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They say nothing to indicate that they do believe the building collapsed due to fire. They just point out the unrealistic assumptions that NIST used to get the shear studs to fail and the girder to walk-off its seat.

They state that shear stud failure did not occur in the testing they did.
"In reality, the slab is also heated and expands but more importantly the beam and slab deflect downward due to differential thermal expansion. This relieves most of the thermal force on the studs."

It also shortens the length of the beam, reducing the overall net expansion.

They point out that heating the beams but not the slab is unrealistic. They also noted that removing the beams from the analysis when they buckle is quite unrealistic.

What they "believe" about higher temperatures causing the beams to fail is irrelevant to the point. The downward bowing and shear studs not failing precludes the NIST hypothesis that the beams expanded enough to push the girder off its seat.

P&T do NOT believe the walk-off hypothesis.

But like P&T, CTBUH does NOT believe the walk-off hypothesis.

Yes Chris, I got all of that. I have already stated that it would have been good for NIST to do more in depth research on initiating event. Only would have cost taxpayers a few more $Million
The fact that P & T say they believe that the temp would have been much greater is as relevent as CBTUH saying they would have prefferred a contraction study.
In both cases its simply a different approach to the initiating event but neither is an indictment of NIST's conclusion that the fire damage caused the initiating event or that this event led to a progression which saw the entire structure fail.

At least it isn't unless you are specifically looking for witches to burn at the stake.

By your measure of fraud I could state that, in your first quoting P & T you did not mention that they thought that the temperatures NIST predicted were undrestimated very significantly, and that this amounts to fraud.
I coud say that you are attempting to make excuses now by saying that these statements by P & T are irrelevent to the discussion and thus not an obvious fraud on your part.

However I am not you and don't use your measurement scale to determine fraud and thus I accept that it was simply an oversight since after all, anyone can actually read P & T and see that statement for themselves.

tsig · 18th June 2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. It is necessary to have the actual input data to see that if is realistic or skewed.

Insults deleted

I have answered this before. Repeatedly and rudely demanding answers that I have already given is a game.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=574

How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be?

jaydeehess · 18th June 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be?

It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results.
If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results"
Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew.

Christopher7 · 18th June 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Yes Chris, I got all of that. I have already stated that it would have been good for NIST to do more in depth research on initiating event. Only would have cost taxpayers a few more $Million

You continue to ignore the point:

NIST did not explain the collapse.

They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6"

That is fraud.

Quote:

The fact that P & T say they believe that the temp would have been much greater is as relevent as CBTUH saying they would have prefferred a contraction study.
In both cases its simply a different approach to the initiating event but neither is an indictment of NIST's conclusion that the fire damage caused the initiating event or that this event led to a progression which saw the entire structure fail.

Without the girder failure, there was no triggering event to start the cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced in the east west direction for 9 floors. What these people may "believe" is irrelevant without a reliable simulation showing that the cascade of floors could have occurred by some other means.

jaydeehess · 18th June 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

You continue to ignore the point:

NIST did not explain the collapse.

They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6"

That is fraud.

the FEA shows the progression of collapse after initial failure. All you need is that initial failure.

Quote:

Without the girder failure, there was no triggering event to start the cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced in the east west direction for 9 floors. What these people may "believe" is irrelevant without a reliable simulation showing that the cascade of floors could have occurred by some other means.

Girder failure led to floor failure OR some other event led to floor & girder failure (no floor , girder would fail too given the heat of the girder and no conrete) after which the scenario becomes the same.

Are you now going to come back and state that a single thermite burn to sever that girder would result in global collapse 'cause that seems where you are headed.

Justin39640 · 18th June 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. It is necessary to have the actual input data to see that if is realistic or skewed.

Insults deleted

I have answered this before. Repeatedly and rudely demanding answers that I have already given is a game.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=574

Lmao. I don't know what you're expecting to see without the program to run it. I'll give you an example. Here is a simulation I made:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here's a small sampling of what you'll see if you try to read the data outside of the program (in this case, Blender):

Quote:

BLENDER-v249REND hò› ú Scene GLOB( Xò› ª 2 õ °A® PD· € SR ¨ À1® ¥ °A® SR1-Animation ¶ ¶ PÑf ðÚf 4¯ ðF¯ PD· ç®è DATA ¶ ¦ €¶ DATA €¶ ¦ à¶ ¶ DATA à¶ ¦ @¶ €¶ è DATA @¶ ¦ *¶ à¶ è DATA *¶ ¦ ¶ @¶ èø DATA ¶ ¦ `¶ *¶ DATA `¶ ¦ À¶ ¶ è DATA À¶ ¦ ¶ `¶ *ø DATA ¶ ¦ €¶ À¶ * DATA €¶ ¦ à¶ ¶ ¼ DATA à¶ ¦ @¶ €¶ è¼ DATA @¶ ¦ *¶ à¶ Ì ø DATA *¶ ¦ ¶ @¶ Ì DATA ¶ ¦ *¶ Ì ¼ DATA( PÑf § ÀÑf €¶ à¶ DATA( ÀÑf § 0Òf PÑf ¶ @¶ DATA( 0Òf § *Òf ÀÑf €¶ ¶ DATA( *Òf § Óf 0Òf à¶ `¶ DATA( Óf § €Óf *Òf ¶ `¶ DATA( €Óf § ðÓf Óf *¶ À¶ DATA( ðÓf § `Ôf €Óf `¶ ¶ DATA( `Ôf § ÐÔf ðÓf À¶ ¶ DATA( ÐÔf § @Õf `Ôf *¶ `¶ DATA( @Õf § °Õf ÐÔf ¶ €¶ DATA( °Õf § Öf @Õf *¶ à¶ DATA( Öf § Öf °Õf @¶ à¶ DATA( Öf § ×f Öf €¶ à¶ DATA( ×f § p×f Öf À¶ @¶ DATA( p×f § à×f ×f ¶ *¶ DATA( à×f § PØf p×f ¶ *¶ DATA( PØf § ÀØf à×f @¶ *¶ DATA( ÀØf § 0Ùf PØf €¶ ¶ DATA( 0Ùf § *Ùf ÀØf à¶ ¶ DATA( *Ùf § Úf 0Ùf *¶ @¶ DATA( Úf § €Úf *Ùf @¶ ¶ DATA( €Úf § ðÚf Úf ¶ €¶ DATA( ðÚf § €Úf *¶ ¶ DATA 4¯ © @3¯ ¶ €

Good luck with that! lol

Christopher7 · 18th June 2012, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results.
If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results"
Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew.

What part of:

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer.

don't you understand?

The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data.

The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later.

Christopher7 · 18th June 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Lmao. I don't know what you're expecting to see without the program to run it. I'll give you an example. Here is a simulation I made:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here's a small sampling of what you'll see if you try to read the data outside of the program (in this case, Blender):

Good luck with that! lol

What data did you input to get that code? That's the NIST input data that needs to be released, not the computer code.

triforcharity · 18th June 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be?

I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat.

It's simply beyond his understanding.

ElMondoHummus · 18th June 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat.

It's simply beyond his understanding.

That's unfair. Cats instinctively understand warmth and how much time they should spend in it.

triforcharity · 18th June 2012, 05:11 PM

Would explaining heat release rates be better? Nope, again, cat's know heat.

Dammit!

Internal combustion engines?

Christopher7 · 18th June 2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. [Rule 12 violation deleted]

To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen. I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about.

thedopefishlives · 18th June 2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

What part of:

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer.

don't you understand?

The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data.

The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...kipoffices.jpg

No, the results do not fit your over-simplified misconceptions of fire spread and duration. You have been schooled more than once on this issue, are you sure you want to reopen that can of worms?

triforcharity · 18th June 2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen.

No. The algorithms are set from the beginning. They aren't "tweaked". The building contents, distribution, ventilation, etc. are researched and placed accordingly. If it is unknow (open or closed doors) sometimes a 50% split will be done randomly. Sometimes it's run with all the doors open, or closed, and an average taken.

So, in conclusion, you've again proven that you know jack **** about FDS software and sims, their uses, or even fire progression in general.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about.

You don't even know WHAT that data is! So, who the **** are you to tell NIST, or anyone else what data is needed. You're talking out of your ass, as usual.

Justin39640 · 18th June 2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen. I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about.

Don't you mean "parameters" Mr computer programmer?

000063 · 18th June 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

False. Dave Scott of CTBUH agrees with the conclusion but P&T did not say one way or the other. They just said they thought the floor beams would have failed, not the whole building.

Quote:

I believe the things that can be verified and call a lie a lie when that can be proven.

NIST lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners. That is fraud!

You have provided no evidence for NIST's intent. None.

Quote:

ETA:Your other post is argumentum ad nauseam.

This is a favorite tactic of yours; to claim that arguments have been made and responded to already, yet you never actually post links to the previous answers, or supply even the vaguest idea of where to find them. It's a hand-wave, an unbacked claim. As I pointed out in the post in question. Yet you're still doing it.

Originally Posted by 000063

Can you provide references to where this has been answered? Post numbers? Links? You're the one making the claim, so the burden is on you. You've made similar claims in the past, and rarely backed it up then.

Your claims rely on it being possible to verify NIST's results. The only way to do that is to have something to compare it to. If someone else runs the sim and comes up with different results,

1. NIST is wrong.
2. The tester is wrong.
3. Both are wrong.

Unless the tester has some sort of metaphorical "answer key" entirely independent of NIST, there's no way of identifying which one is right.

No one can "verify" NIST without some sort of third source of information to corroborate. When two people disagree on something objective, they can simply look up the information. You want someone to verify NIST's data against NIST's data.

000063 · 18th June 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results.
If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results"
Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew.

So they want to test it so they can prove it's a fraud, which they already know.

Seems about their usual level of logic.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat.

It's simply beyond his understanding.

At least the cat's cute and can't be expected to know any better.

triforcharity · 18th June 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

At least the cat's cute and can't be expected to know any better.

Damn right she is! I'd post a picture, but we were admonished for posting kitten pictures, so here's my dog instead....:

Cl1mh4224rd · 18th June 2012, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. It is necessary to have the actual input data to see that if is realistic or skewed.

Compared to what?

Christopher7 · 19th June 2012, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No. The algorithms are set from the beginning. They aren't "tweaked". The building contents, distribution, ventilation, etc. are researched and placed accordingly. If it is unknow (open or closed doors) sometimes a 50% split will be done randomly. Sometimes it's run with all the doors open, or closed, and an average taken.

They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all.

Quote:

So, in conclusion, you've again proven that you know jack **** about FDS software and sims, their uses, or even fire progression in general.

Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data.

Insult deleted.
I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

tsig · 19th June 2012, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all.

Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data.

Insult deleted.
I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

Since NIST lies why would you trust the data from them?

Christopher7 · 19th June 2012, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Since NIST lies why would you trust the data from them?

I don't. They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data. But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking.

twinstead · 19th June 2012, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

And do you know what they'll find? They'll find that fire and damage brought the buildings down too, NIST's ultimate conclusion.

What a waste of time!

Christopher7 · 19th June 2012, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

And do you know what they'll find? They'll find that fire and damage brought the buildings down too, NIST's ultimate conclusion.

What a waste of time!

You haven't been paying attention.

NIST did not explain the collapse.

They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6".

Furthermore
Their own data proves that the beams did not push the girder off its seat.

The floor beams in the NE region of floor 13 did not exceed 600oC.
See: NCSTAR 1-9 Table 10-1
Ambient temperature is 22oC (72oF).
So the maximum possible increase in temperature would be 578oC.

The floor beam closest to column 79 was 53 feet 4 inches (640 inches).
Using the formula on pg 343-344 of NCSTAR 1-9
0.000014 x 578 x 640 = 5.18 in.

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
NCSTAR 1-9 pg 527

triforcharity · 19th June 2012, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition.

It's realistic in that even with the door closed, the effect would have been negligible. The interior doors used in office buildings are not fire rated, so if anything, they would have just added to the fire spread.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all.

No, THAT is VERY unrealistic. Do you even know how a fuel load will effect a fire? What will happen if the fuel load is high, versus one that is low?

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data.

Nope. You need to 1-Cite your source and 2-prove you even understand fire progression. Explain why the fire burned one direction versus the other.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Insult deleted.
I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles.

Wow....mature.....

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Professionals

Who? Which professional?

Originally Posted by Christopher7

have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

Wouldn't it be much easier and less time consuming (since this professional{not you} will need to do it anyway) just research it themselves and put together a comparable FDS? Wouldn't that make a WHOLE lot more sense than sitting around pouting that "NIST won't give me the data", and just do your own?

MS PaintFire DOESN'T constitute an FDS. Just FYI. I know you're fond of that program.

triforcharity · 19th June 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

What part of:

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer.

don't you understand?

The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data.

The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later.

What is the problem with this SIM Sarns? Can you tell me which image this is? Is it from NIST L again? Or is it from 1-9?

Animal · 19th June 2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition.

It's realistic in that even with the door closed, the effect would have been negligible. The interior doors used in office buildings are not fire rated, so if anything, they would have just added to the fire spread.

I would say from my experience both working in and designing hundreds of thousands of s.f. of commercial office space,

1) that the majority of office doors are left open.
2) the vast majority of office doors (which as you pointed out are not rated) are solid core wood, often with glazing or a sidelite.

NoahFence · 19th June 2012, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

What data did you input to get that code? That's the NIST input data that needs to be released, not the computer code.

Nothing needs to be released.

tsig · 19th June 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I don't. They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data. But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking.

You want data the you already know is skewed to prove it's skewed?

Well, I see your name at the top of the post. Are you some kind of official spokesman for some group?

Animal · 19th June 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

You want data the you already know is skewed to prove it's skewed?

Funny thing is every time one of his claims is analyzed, it turns out his "data" is what is skewed.

Quote:

Well, I see your name at the top of the post. Are you some kind of official spokesman for some group?

jaydeehess · 19th June 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results.
If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results"
Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew.

What part of:

That's not necessarily what they put into the computer.

don't you understand?

What part of this negates my description of what you quoted me as saying?

YOU already stated that AE911T would NOT be doing their own research and determining what those data should be. Therefore they must plan on doing some analysis on what this data should produce in the way of fire spread and temp.

The only way you can 'verify' whether NIST's FDS, which IS what NIST relied on, produced the results it did from the data they input to it would be to re-run the FDS using that data.
Correct or no? If no, then what EXACTLy does AE911T plan on doing with that data?

jaydeehess · 19th June 2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data.

The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...kipoffices.jpg

Its already been pointed out to you that the diagrams show ceiling level hot gasses. That being the case the fire itself is not necessarily at that location twice. If there is a wall and fire burns on one side of that wall the gasses will be spread out from that location, and if two hours later the office space on the other side of that wall is now burning the gasses will spread out from that location and there can easily be overlap at ceiling height where the gasses are at high temps twice.

jaydeehess · 19th June 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all.

In some cases they had descriptions of the sue of rooms from which they could deduce a load that would vary depending upon usage. For eg. offices versus library versus docuement storage.

As for doors they had a choice, open or closed. They obviously did not know which were closed, which were open. They chose open because in many office buildings that are evacuated doors tend to be left open.
The position of the door would affect temperature of the fire within that room, the time of spread into that room, and the spread from that room to another. IMO leaving them open reduces spread time, increases temperature and reduces time of burn. The FACT that its obvious that not all doors were open would result in the fire spread etc. being slightly different than what the FDS shows. Same goes for fuel load. Even if they had a good description of the usage of each and every room their fuel load input would be an average for a room of that type and since thats not going to exactly mimic what was actually in each room the FDS will be slightly different that observables.

Quote:

NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data

Really, thats your 'proof' that the data is skewed, your personal incredulity?

Quote:

Insult deleted.

Yet you have no problem insulting the engineers and others who worked for NIST..... noted

Quote:

Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

Great but you still have not explained WHAt those professionals plan on DOING with that data (please do not parrot the 'verify it' line again)

Originally Posted by Christopher7

They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data.

Forgone , prejudiced conclusion also noted. Is that how AE911T will be approaching this as well, with a prejudice as to what they will deduce from the data?

Quote:

But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking.

Again, first what exactly are they planning on doing with the data and second , will they be working from a prejudiced POV as to what they will write about the data after having gotten it? Is their report already written and they simply can't release it until they have the data?

Christopher7 · 20th June 2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by C7

They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, THAT is VERY unrealistic. Do you even know how a fuel load will effect a fire? What will happen if the fuel load is high, versus one that is low?

NCSTAR 1A pg 10-11
"As indicated in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 3, the Investigation Team estimated a combustible fuel load of approximately 32 kg/m3 (6.4 lb/ft2). Simulations of the fires with a lower combustible fuel load showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.

Originally Posted by C7

NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices.

Quote:

Nope. You need to 1-Cite your source

NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.

Quote:

and 2-prove you even understand fire progression. Explain why the fire burned one direction versus the other.

The fire spread to adjacent offices in all directions at about the same rate until the windows on the north side started breaking, allowing the breeze to become a factor. Until then it was drawing air thru the debris damaged area and the broken windows on the north and then the east sides. There was nothing to prevent the fire in the offices just south of column 80 from burning the adjacent offices just north of column 80.

Quote:

Who? Which professional?

NIST FOIA response to Ron Brookman
http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

"We are, however, withholding 3,370 files. The NIST director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety." This withheld data include remain input and all result files of the ANSYS . . . . . "

Quote:

Wouldn't it be much easier and less time consuming (since this professional{not you} will need to do it anyway) just research it themselves and put together a comparable FDS? Wouldn't that make a WHOLE lot more sense than sitting around pouting that "NIST won't give me the data", and just do your own?

Asked and answered several times.
Mr. Brookman and others need the NIST data to verify its validity or non validity. How he/they will do that I don't know, but he does.

Christopher7 · 20th June 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What is the problem with this SIM Sarns?

I stated the problem. The fire in the offices just south of column 80 does not spread to the adjacent offices just north of column 80.

Quote:

Can you tell me which image this is? Is it from NIST L again? Or is it from 1-9?

If you don't recognize the NIST fire sim you haven't done much research.
http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/696/hhs.mp4/

Christopher7 · 20th June 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Its already been pointed out to you that the diagrams show ceiling level hot gasses.

I read that years ago. I didn't need anyone to tell me.

Quote:

That being the case the fire itself is not necessarily at that location twice.

I didn't say it did.

Quote:

If there is a wall and fire burns on one side of that wall the gasses will be spread out from that location,

and ignite the adjacent offices.

Quote:

and if two hours later the office space on the other side of that wall is now burning

The office space on the other side of that wall would have been ignited while the first office was burning.

triforcharity · 20th June 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I stated the problem. The fire in the offices just south of column 80 does not spread to the adjacent offices just north of column 80.

If you don't recognize the NIST fire sim you haven't done much research.
http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/696/hhs.mp4/

Sarns, I have done more research on 7WTC and the fire progression, fuel loads, tile strength, ventilation variables, etc. than you or anyone in the "Truth" movement. You don't know the first damn thing.

Also, you don't even know the details of this sim. You've linked it before. Is that with the stronger tiles? What's the fuel load for that specific sim? Do you even know? No, you don't. So, this could have been an earlier sim, that is inaccurate, or with different fuel loads than what is found to be slightly inaccurate. You don't know, yet you cite it, thinking that you do.

Secondly, if you had looked at the floor plan in 1-9 Vol1, page 100 of the PDF,
you would see the the offices located just north of Col. 80, is only one row of offices, and to the north of that, a hallway, and some type of hallway runing N-S, and what appears to be a receptionist area of some sort.

So, very little combustibles in a hallway of course, and, if you'll notice (using your sim) at 4:18, those offices are burning. Not at the 5pm that you claim.

It continues to spread to those offices from the E to the W, but slowly. Why might that be Sarns? Hum......

So, your problem is made up. It's a figment of your imagination, as usual.

Animal · 20th June 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Sarns, I have done more research on 7WTC and the fire progression, fuel loads, tile strength, ventilation variables, etc. than you or anyone in the "Truth" movement. You don't know the first damn thing.

Also, you don't even know the details of this sim. You've linked it before. Is that with the stronger tiles? What's the fuel load for that specific sim? Do you even know? No, you don't. So, this could have been an earlier sim, that is inaccurate, or with different fuel loads than what is found to be slightly inaccurate. You don't know, yet you cite it, thinking that you do.

Secondly, if you had looked at the floor plan in 1-9 Vol1, page 100 of the PDF,
you would see the the offices located just north of Col. 80, is only one row of offices, and to the north of that, a hallway, and some type of hallway runing N-S, and what appears to be a receptionist area of some sort.

Remember that those are upper gas temperatures, not actual fire.

There could be so much more information involved in the sim than what is published in the NCSTAR report. Factors that could have changed progress vary from known ceiling type, walls extending to the deck, insulated walls, etc. etc. C7 once again makes uninformed assumptions and presents them as facts.

Quote:

So, very little combustibles in a hallway of course, and, if you'll notice (using your sim) at 4:18, those offices are burning. Not at the 5pm that you claim.

It continues to spread to those offices from the E to the W, but slowly. Why might that be Sarns? Hum......

So, your problem is made up. It's a figment of your imagination, as usual.

triforcharity · 20th June 2012, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NCSTAR 1A pg 10-11
"As indicated in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 3, the Investigation Team estimated a combustible fuel load of approximately 32 kg/m3 (6.4 lb/ft2). Simulations of the fires with a lower combustible fuel load showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.

Go read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1, chapter 3, and come back.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.

Go read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2, chp. 9, and come back.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The fire spread to adjacent offices in all directions at about the same rate until the windows on the north side started breaking, allowing the breeze to become a factor. Until then it was drawing air thru the debris damaged area and the broken windows on the north and then the east sides. There was nothing to prevent the fire in the offices just south of column 80 from burning the adjacent offices just north of column 80.

1-9 Vol 2 Chp. 9. Go. Read it. Stop using a summary report, and use the actual report.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NIST FOIA response to Ron Brookman
http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

"We are, however, withholding 3,370 files. The NIST director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety." This withheld data include remain input and all result files of the ANSYS . . . . . "

Which have NOTHING to do with FDS sims. Those are for ANSYS data, which deal with structural members. Fail.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Asked and answered several times.
Mr. Brookman and others need the NIST data to verify its validity or non validity. How he/they will do that I don't know, but he does.

Ron Brookman is a SE out of California. He's not doing an FDS. Maybe you can fine a Fire Protection Engineer to do one...

Christopher7 · 20th June 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Go read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1, chapter 3, and come back.
Go read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2, chp. 9, and come back.
1-9 Vol 2 Chp. 9. Go. Read it.

No sir, sir. State your point and stop giving orders sir.

Quote:

Stop using a summary report, and use the actual report.

It's all the final report and I'll quote from the summary when it suits me. Do you think the summary is wrong? If not then you have no reason to complain.

Quote:

Which have NOTHING to do with FDS sims. Those are for ANSYS data, which deal with structural members. Fail.

Point taken.

Quote:

Ron Brookman is a SE out of California. He's not doing an FDS. Maybe you can fine a Fire Protection Engineer to do one...

I'll inquire about anyone requesting the FDS data.

18th June 2012, 02:53 PM	#681
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by Christopher7 They say nothing to indicate that they do believe the building collapsed due to fire. They just point out the unrealistic assumptions that NIST used to get the shear studs to fail and the girder to walk-off its seat. They state that shear stud failure did not occur in the testing they did. "In reality, the slab is also heated and expands but more importantly the beam and slab deflect downward due to differential thermal expansion. This relieves most of the thermal force on the studs." It also shortens the length of the beam, reducing the overall net expansion. They point out that heating the beams but not the slab is unrealistic. They also noted that removing the beams from the analysis when they buckle is quite unrealistic. What they "believe" about higher temperatures causing the beams to fail is irrelevant to the point. The downward bowing and shear studs not failing precludes the NIST hypothesis that the beams expanded enough to push the girder off its seat. P&T do NOT believe the walk-off hypothesis. But like P&T, CTBUH does NOT believe the walk-off hypothesis. Yes Chris, I got all of that. I have already stated that it would have been good for NIST to do more in depth research on initiating event. Only would have cost taxpayers a few more $Million The fact that P & T say they believe that the temp would have been much greater is as relevent as CBTUH saying they would have prefferred a contraction study. In both cases its simply a different approach to the initiating event but neither is an indictment of NIST's conclusion that the fire damage caused the initiating event or that this event led to a progression which saw the entire structure fail. At least it isn't unless you are specifically looking for witches to burn at the stake. By your measure of fraud I could state that, in your first quoting P & T you did not mention that they thought that the temperatures NIST predicted were undrestimated very significantly, and that this amounts to fraud. I coud say that you are attempting to make excuses now by saying that these statements by P & T are irrelevent to the discussion and thus not an obvious fraud on your part. However I am not you and don't use your measurement scale to determine fraud and thus I accept that it was simply an oversight since after all, anyone can actually read P & T and see that statement for themselves.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th June 2012 at 03:02 PM.

18th June 2012, 03:40 PM	#685
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by Christopher7 You continue to ignore the point: NIST did not explain the collapse. They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6" That is fraud. the FEA shows the progression of collapse after initial failure. All you need is that initial failure. Quote: Without the girder failure, there was no triggering event to start the cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced in the east west direction for 9 floors. What these people may "believe" is irrelevant without a reliable simulation showing that the cascade of floors could have occurred by some other means. Girder failure led to floor failure OR some other event led to floor & girder failure (no floor , girder would fail too given the heat of the girder and no conrete) after which the scenario becomes the same. Are you now going to come back and state that a single thermite burn to sever that girder would result in global collapse 'cause that seems where you are headed.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th June 2012 at 03:42 PM.

18th June 2012, 04:50 PM	#689
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by tsig How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be? I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat. It's simply beyond his understanding.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

18th June 2012, 04:57 PM	#690
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by triforcharity I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat. It's simply beyond his understanding. That's unfair. Cats instinctively understand warmth and how much time they should spend in it.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

18th June 2012, 05:11 PM	#691
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Would explaining heat release rates be better? Nope, again, cat's know heat. Dammit! Internal combustion engines?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

18th June 2012, 03:00 PM	#682
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Christopher7 That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. It is necessary to have the actual input data to see that if is realistic or skewed. Insults deleted I have answered this before. Repeatedly and rudely demanding answers that I have already given is a game. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=574 How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be?

18th June 2012, 03:09 PM	#683
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by tsig How would you know that the data was realistic or skewed unless you already knew what the data should be? It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results. If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results" Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew.

18th June 2012, 03:28 PM	#684
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Yes Chris, I got all of that. I have already stated that it would have been good for NIST to do more in depth research on initiating event. Only would have cost taxpayers a few more $Million You continue to ignore the point: NIST did not explain the collapse. They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6" That is fraud. Quote: The fact that P & T say they believe that the temp would have been much greater is as relevent as CBTUH saying they would have prefferred a contraction study. In both cases its simply a different approach to the initiating event but neither is an indictment of NIST's conclusion that the fire damage caused the initiating event or that this event led to a progression which saw the entire structure fail. Without the girder failure, there was no triggering event to start the cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced in the east west direction for 9 floors. What these people may "believe" is irrelevant without a reliable simulation showing that the cascade of floors could have occurred by some other means.

18th June 2012, 04:41 PM	#687
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by jaydeehess It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results. If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results" Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew. What part of: That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. don't you understand? The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data. The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later.

18th June 2012, 05:21 PM	#692
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by triforcharity I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. [Rule 12 violation deleted] To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen. I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about.

18th June 2012, 05:25 PM	#693
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 782	Originally Posted by Christopher7 What part of: That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. don't you understand? The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data. The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later. http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...kipoffices.jpg No, the results do not fit your over-simplified misconceptions of fire spread and duration. You have been schooled more than once on this issue, are you sure you want to reopen that can of worms?
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 782

18th June 2012, 05:29 PM	#694
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by Christopher7 To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen. No. The algorithms are set from the beginning. They aren't "tweaked". The building contents, distribution, ventilation, etc. are researched and placed accordingly. If it is unknow (open or closed doors) sometimes a 50% split will be done randomly. Sometimes it's run with all the doors open, or closed, and an average taken. So, in conclusion, you've again proven that you know jack ** about FDS software and sims, their uses, or even fire progression in general. Originally Posted by Christopher7 I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about. You don't even know WHAT that data is! So, who the ** are you to tell NIST, or anyone else what data is needed. You're talking out of your ass, as usual.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

18th June 2012, 05:29 PM	#695
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,667	Originally Posted by Christopher7 To get the program to do things like burn around some offices and come back to them 2 houirs later, the input data [not the computer code] will have some "tweaking" to get that to happen. I was a programmer for a while and I know that someone has to type in the input data and perimeters. This is the data I am talking about. Don't you mean "parameters" Mr computer programmer?
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

18th June 2012, 06:00 PM	#696
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by Christopher7 False. Dave Scott of CTBUH agrees with the conclusion but P&T did not say one way or the other. They just said they thought the floor beams would have failed, not the whole building. Quote: I believe the things that can be verified and call a lie a lie when that can be proven. NIST lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners. That is fraud! You have provided no evidence for NIST's intent. None. Quote: ETA:Your other post is argumentum ad nauseam. This is a favorite tactic of yours; to claim that arguments have been made and responded to already, yet you never actually post links to the previous answers, or supply even the vaguest idea of where to find them. It's a hand-wave, an unbacked claim. As I pointed out in the post in question. Yet you're still doing it. Originally Posted by 000063 Can you provide references to where this has been answered? Post numbers? Links? You're the one making the claim, so the burden is on you. You've made similar claims in the past, and rarely backed it up then. Your claims rely on it being possible to verify NIST's results. The only way to do that is to have something to compare it to. If someone else runs the sim and comes up with different results, 1. NIST is wrong. 2. The tester is wrong. 3. Both are wrong. Unless the tester has some sort of metaphorical "answer key" entirely independent of NIST, there's no way of identifying which one is right. No one can "verify" NIST without some sort of third source of information to corroborate. When two people disagree on something objective, they can simply look up the information. You want someone to verify NIST's data against NIST's data.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

18th June 2012, 06:10 PM	#697
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by jaydeehess It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results. If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results" Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew. So they want to test it so they can prove it's a fraud, which they already know. Seems about their usual level of logic. Originally Posted by triforcharity I've already tried to explain that to him no less than 3 times. Unsurprisingly, not no avail. I think I would have better luck trying to explain time temperature curves to my cat. It's simply beyond his understanding. At least the cat's cute and can't be expected to know any better.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

18th June 2012, 07:18 PM	#698
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by 000063 At least the cat's cute and can't be expected to know any better. Damn right she is! I'd post a picture, but we were admonished for posting kitten pictures, so here's my dog instead....:
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

18th June 2012, 09:42 PM	#699
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by Christopher7 That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. It is necessary to have the actual input data to see that if is realistic or skewed. Compared to what?

19th June 2012, 03:18 AM	#700
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by triforcharity No. The algorithms are set from the beginning. They aren't "tweaked". The building contents, distribution, ventilation, etc. are researched and placed accordingly. If it is unknow (open or closed doors) sometimes a 50% split will be done randomly. Sometimes it's run with all the doors open, or closed, and an average taken. They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all. Quote: So, in conclusion, you've again proven that you know jack **** about FDS software and sims, their uses, or even fire progression in general. Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data. Insult deleted. I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data.

19th June 2012, 03:23 AM	#701
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Christopher7 They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all. Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data. Insult deleted. I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data. Since NIST lies why would you trust the data from them?

19th June 2012, 03:31 AM	#702
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by tsig Since NIST lies why would you trust the data from them? I don't. They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data. But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking.

19th June 2012, 03:33 AM	#703
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	Originally Posted by Christopher7 I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data. And do you know what they'll find? They'll find that fire and damage brought the buildings down too, NIST's ultimate conclusion. What a waste of time!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

19th June 2012, 04:00 AM	#704
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by twinstead And do you know what they'll find? They'll find that fire and damage brought the buildings down too, NIST's ultimate conclusion. What a waste of time! You haven't been paying attention. NIST did not explain the collapse. They lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented girder failure, even if it could be pushed 6". Furthermore Their own data proves that the beams did not push the girder off its seat. The floor beams in the NE region of floor 13 did not exceed 600oC. See: NCSTAR 1-9 Table 10-1 Ambient temperature is 22oC (72oF). So the maximum possible increase in temperature would be 578oC. The floor beam closest to column 79 was 53 feet 4 inches (640 inches). Using the formula on pg 343-344 of NCSTAR 1-9 0.000014 x 578 x 640 = 5.18 in. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat. NCSTAR 1-9 pg 527

19th June 2012, 07:13 AM	#705
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by Christopher7 They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. It's realistic in that even with the door closed, the effect would have been negligible. The interior doors used in office buildings are not fire rated, so if anything, they would have just added to the fire spread. Originally Posted by Christopher7 They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all. No, THAT is VERY unrealistic. Do you even know how a fuel load will effect a fire? What will happen if the fuel load is high, versus one that is low? Originally Posted by Christopher7 Balderdash! This is not rocket surgery. NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data. Nope. You need to 1-Cite your source and 2-prove you even understand fire progression. Explain why the fire burned one direction versus the other. Originally Posted by Christopher7 Insult deleted. I'm not telling NIST, I'm arguing with ill mannered juveniles. Wow....mature..... Originally Posted by Christopher7 Professionals Who? Which professional? Originally Posted by Christopher7 have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data. Wouldn't it be much easier and less time consuming (since this professional{not you} will need to do it anyway) just research it themselves and put together a comparable FDS? Wouldn't that make a WHOLE lot more sense than sitting around pouting that "NIST won't give me the data", and just do your own? MS PaintFire DOESN'T constitute an FDS. Just FYI. I know you're fond of that program.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th June 2012, 07:29 AM	#706
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by Christopher7 What part of: That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. don't you understand? The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data. The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later. What is the problem with this SIM Sarns? Can you tell me which image this is? Is it from NIST L again? Or is it from 1-9?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th June 2012, 07:30 AM	#707
Animal Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,368	Originally Posted by triforcharity Quote: Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. It's realistic in that even with the door closed, the effect would have been negligible. The interior doors used in office buildings are not fire rated, so if anything, they would have just added to the fire spread. I would say from my experience both working in and designing hundreds of thousands of s.f. of commercial office space, 1) that the majority of office doors are left open. 2) the vast majority of office doors (which as you pointed out are not rated) are solid core wood, often with glazing or a sidelite.

19th June 2012, 07:33 AM	#708
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Originally Posted by Christopher7 What data did you input to get that code? That's the NIST input data that needs to be released, not the computer code. Nothing *needs* to be released.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

19th June 2012, 09:58 AM	#709
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Christopher7 I don't. They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data. But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking. You want data the you already know is skewed to prove it's skewed? Well, I see your name at the top of the post. Are you some kind of official spokesman for some group?

19th June 2012, 10:02 AM	#710
Animal Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,368	Originally Posted by tsig You want data the you already know is skewed to prove it's skewed? Funny thing is every time one of his claims is analyzed, it turns out his "data" is what is skewed. Quote: Well, I see your name at the top of the post. Are you some kind of official spokesman for some group?

19th June 2012, 10:24 AM	#711
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Quote: Originally Posted by jaydeehess It seems as if what AE911T wants to do is re-enter that NIST data into the FDS program and run it through and see if it turns up the same results. If it does not then they will shout "J'accuse" or more to the point "Lies,,, LIES,,,LIES, NIST lied about their results" Its the final FDS results they wish to check as to realism and skew. What part of: That's not necessarily what they put into the computer. don't you understand? What part of this negates my description of what you quoted me as saying? YOU already stated that AE911T would NOT be doing their own research and determining what those data should be. Therefore they must plan on doing some analysis on what this data should produce in the way of fire spread and temp. The only way you can 'verify' whether NIST's FDS, which IS what NIST relied on, produced the results it did from the data they input to it would be to re-run the FDS using that data. Correct or no? If no, then what EXACTLy does AE911T plan on doing with that data?
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 19th June 2012 at 10:31 AM.

19th June 2012, 10:31 AM	#712
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Quote: The results of the computer sim do not follow the stated way the fire spread, or the duration. The skewing will be apparent in the input data. The fire burns around the offices just north of column 80 and comes back to them 2 hours later. http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...kipoffices.jpg Its already been pointed out to you that the diagrams show ceiling level hot gasses. That being the case the fire itself is not necessarily at that location twice. If there is a wall and fire burns on one side of that wall the gasses will be spread out from that location, and if two hours later the office space on the other side of that wall is now burning the gasses will spread out from that location and there can easily be overlap at ceiling height where the gasses are at high temps twice.

19th June 2012, 10:48 AM	#713
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by Christopher7 They left the doors open which is an unrealistic condition. They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all. In some cases they had descriptions of the sue of rooms from which they could deduce a load that would vary depending upon usage. For eg. offices versus library versus docuement storage. As for doors they had a choice, open or closed. They obviously did not know which were closed, which were open. They chose open because in many office buildings that are evacuated doors tend to be left open. The position of the door would affect temperature of the fire within that room, the time of spread into that room, and the spread from that room to another. IMO leaving them open reduces spread time, increases temperature and reduces time of burn. The FACT that its obvious that not all doors were open would result in the fire spread etc. being slightly different than what the FDS shows. Same goes for fuel load. Even if they had a good description of the usage of each and every room their fuel load input would be an average for a room of that type and since thats not going to exactly mimic what was actually in each room the FDS will be slightly different that observables. Quote: NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Someone skewed the data Really, thats your 'proof' that the data is skewed, your personal incredulity? Quote: Insult deleted. Yet you have no problem insulting the engineers and others who worked for NIST..... noted Quote: Professionals have made FoIA requests and will do the analysis if NIST ever releases the data. Great but you still have not explained WHAt those professionals plan on DOING with that data (please do not parrot the 'verify it' line again) Originally Posted by Christopher7 They won't release the data because it will show how they skewed the data. Forgone , prejudiced conclusion also noted. Is that how AE911T will be approaching this as well, with a prejudice as to what they will deduce from the data? Quote: But I'm not asking for the data, professionals who know what to do with it are asking. Again, first what exactly are they planning on doing with the data and second , will they be working from a prejudiced POV as to what they will write about the data after having gotten it? Is their report already written and they simply can't release it until they have the data?

20th June 2012, 05:11 AM	#714
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by C7 They did not know what was in each office so they should have provided the same fuel load in all. Originally Posted by triforcharity No, THAT is VERY unrealistic. Do you even know how a fuel load will effect a fire? What will happen if the fuel load is high, versus one that is low? NCSTAR 1A pg 10-11 "As indicated in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 3, the Investigation Team estimated a combustible fuel load of approximately 32 kg/m3 (6.4 lb/ft2). Simulations of the fires with a lower combustible fuel load showed little effect on the rate of fire progression. Originally Posted by C7 NIST described how the fire spread from office to office and how it would take a little longer to jump a hallway because the gasses would cool along the way. The fire would have continued to burn from office to office thru the offices just north of column 80. It would not have stopped and waited 2 hours before burning those offices. Quote: Nope. You need to 1-Cite your source NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61] On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way. Quote: and 2-prove you even understand fire progression. Explain why the fire burned one direction versus the other. The fire spread to adjacent offices in all directions at about the same rate until the windows on the north side started breaking, allowing the breeze to become a factor. Until then it was drawing air thru the debris damaged area and the broken windows on the north and then the east sides. There was nothing to prevent the fire in the offices just south of column 80 from burning the adjacent offices just north of column 80. Quote: Who? Which professional? NIST FOIA response to Ron Brookman http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf "We are, however, withholding 3,370 files. The NIST director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety." This withheld data include remain input and all result files of the ANSYS . . . . . " Quote: Wouldn't it be much easier and less time consuming (since this professional{not you} will need to do it anyway) just research it themselves and put together a comparable FDS? Wouldn't that make a WHOLE lot more sense than sitting around pouting that "NIST won't give me the data", and just do your own? Asked and answered several times. Mr. Brookman and others need the NIST data to verify its validity or non validity. How he/they will do that I don't know, but he does.

20th June 2012, 05:21 AM	#715
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by triforcharity What is the problem with this SIM Sarns? I stated the problem. The fire in the offices just south of column 80 does not spread to the adjacent offices just north of column 80. Quote: Can you tell me which image this is? Is it from NIST L again? Or is it from 1-9? If you don't recognize the NIST fire sim you haven't done much research. http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/696/hhs.mp4/

20th June 2012, 05:32 AM	#716
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Its already been pointed out to you that the diagrams show ceiling level hot gasses. I read that years ago. I didn't need anyone to tell me. Quote: That being the case the fire itself is not necessarily at that location twice. I didn't say it did. Quote: If there is a wall and fire burns on one side of that wall the gasses will be spread out from that location, and ignite the adjacent offices. Quote: and if two hours later the office space on the other side of that wall is now burning The office space on the other side of that wall would have been ignited while the first office was burning.

20th June 2012, 07:57 AM	#717
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Originally Posted by Christopher7 I stated the problem. The fire in the offices just south of column 80 does not spread to the adjacent offices just north of column 80. If you don't recognize the NIST fire sim you haven't done much research. http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/696/hhs.mp4/ Sarns, I have done more research on 7WTC and the fire progression, fuel loads, tile strength, ventilation variables, etc. than you or anyone in the "Truth" movement. You don't know the first damn thing. Also, you don't even know the details of this sim. You've linked it before. Is that with the stronger tiles? What's the fuel load for that specific sim? Do you even know? No, you don't. So, this could have been an earlier sim, that is inaccurate, or with different fuel loads than what is found to be slightly inaccurate. You don't know, yet you cite it, thinking that you do. Secondly, if you had looked at the floor plan in 1-9 Vol1, page 100 of the PDF, you would see the the offices located just north of Col. 80, is only one row of offices, and to the north of that, a hallway, and some type of hallway runing N-S, and what appears to be a receptionist area of some sort. So, very little combustibles in a hallway of course, and, if you'll notice (using your sim) at 4:18, those offices are burning. Not at the 5pm that you claim. It continues to spread to those offices from the E to the W, but slowly. Why might that be Sarns? Hum...... So, your problem is made up. It's a figment of your imagination, as usual.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity