Possible Error on WTC7 NIST report...

Mr.Herbert · 24th August 2008, 06:31 AM

Not a major problem. A truther caught this and I'm not sure. I actually posted this in another thread here but with Roundhead and his shenanigans, it got buried.

(he states report but it is on the PDF)

Here is what the truther found:

Quote:

Page 49 of the NIST report estimates fuel loads of 32 kg/m^3. This is a volume measurement. Converting metric to imperial units, the NIST report states that this fuel load is 6.4 lb/ft^2. This is an area unit.

page 86 of the report. It clearly shows the estimated fuel loads and ALL estimates are given as area units. The erroneous 32 kg/m^3 has been correctly typed to be 32 kg/m^2 - an area unit. The floor of a building is measured by area, either m^2 or ft^2. NIST tried to estimate the amount of combustible material spread across the floors. They did not try to estimate the density of the combustible material.

He pointed this out because I challenged all truthers to find one error on the report.

mrbaracuda · 24th August 2008, 06:43 AM

I guess m² makes more sense.

boloboffin · 24th August 2008, 07:07 AM

So is it an error or a typo?

Mr.Herbert · 24th August 2008, 07:11 AM

It's a typo. I was just so cocky to the truthers. I kind of have egg on my face.

boloboffin · 24th August 2008, 07:18 AM

Oh, well, I found a typo, too. I guess that means Bush did it.

Thunder · 24th August 2008, 08:08 AM

what? NIST made an error??

Inside Job!!!!!

=)

e^n · 24th August 2008, 08:39 AM

They mention the LDEO collapse times for WTC7 as being 5:20am, I wonder if that is also a typo

Travis · 24th August 2008, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by e^n

They mention the LDEO collapse times for WTC7 as being 5:20am, I wonder if that is also a typo

That's when it was supposed to be brought down, with no cameras around to tape it, but some damned intern got the times mixed up.

e^n · 24th August 2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

That's when it was supposed to be brought down, with no cameras around to tape it, but some damned intern got the times mixed up.

Damn! Yet another mistake in the seemingly endless stream. I guess this will be the 168th smoking gun.

Seymour Butz · 24th August 2008, 10:38 AM

The only REAL error I've found is :

on page 35/115 NIST says that the SFRM on the girders didn't meet the specs for sprinklered or unsprinklered buildings...

then on 45/115 they say that the SFRM met requirements.

What gives NIST?

RKOwens4 · 24th August 2008, 10:45 AM

This is why this version is only a draft and open to public comment. At a whopping 786 pages, there are BOUND to be a few typos and grammar mistakes. I submitted a public comment about the section on the collapse time for WTC7 where it says that the building fell 40% longer than free-fall speed. In the report, it has two nearly identical versions of the same paragraph which appear right after the other. My guess is the author decided to alter the original paragraph slightly, but then forgot to delete the original paragraph.

You should send them an email about this. You can find the link to the page with instructions a few links below the link to the report, on the main page, wtc.nist.gov.

T.A.M. · 24th August 2008, 10:49 AM

1. To be "gotcha"ed by a bunch of loonitards should not cause you much distress...
2. Better to challenge them to find a "single error in fact". Calling a typo an "error" is kind of *********** silly, but what do you expect from the loonitards.

TAM

Seymour Butz · 24th August 2008, 10:49 AM

Look at it yourself, there's no way it's a typo, cuz NIST goes on to explain on page 35 that even if there WAS the right amount of SFRM, it still prolly would have failed. No way they explain a typo.....

All the other references in that and the bigger one all state that the SFRM was up to code.

I'm baffled about this.....

Seymour Butz · 24th August 2008, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

1. To be "gotcha"ed by a bunch of loonitards should not cause you much distress...
2. Better to challenge them to find a "single error in fact". Calling a typo an "error" is kind of *********** silly, but what do you expect from the loonitards.

TAM

Try reading it yourself and THEN say that.

Believe me, I'm no moonbat troofer. I use the same handle over on ATS. Search for some of my posts and hopefully you'll see that loonitard does not in any way apply to moi.

mrbaracuda · 24th August 2008, 11:07 AM

Herr Butz, mail zem zhen!

theprestige · 25th August 2008, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz

The only REAL error I've found is :

on page 35/115 NIST says that the SFRM on the girders didn't meet the specs for sprinklered or unsprinklered buildings...

then on 45/115 they say that the SFRM met requirements.

What gives NIST?

Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim?

AZCat · 25th August 2008, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim?

He was probably referring to the following passages:

Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 Report, page xxxiii

The design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City Building Code of 1968 (NYCBC), with which, by policy, it was to comply. The installed thickness of the thermal insulation on the floor beams was below that required for unsprinklered or sprinklered buildings, but it is unlikely that the collapse of WTC 7 could have been prevented even if the thickness had been consistent with building code requirements.

Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 Report, page 7

According to the 1968 version of the NYCBC and Local Law 16 (1984), a fully sprinklered high-rise building could follow the fire resistance requirements for Type 1C construction. For this construction category, columns were required to have a 2 h rating in the ASTM E 119 test; beams were required to have a 1 1/2 h rating. The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the fluted steel decking and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, 1/2 in. to be applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values.

JihadJane · 26th August 2008, 01:38 PM

Nice theory. No physical evidence.

T.A.M. · 26th August 2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz

Try reading it yourself and THEN say that.

Believe me, I'm no moonbat troofer. I use the same handle over on ATS. Search for some of my posts and hopefully you'll see that loonitard does not in any way apply to moi.

I think we are speaking of different "errors" I was referring to the first typo mentioned in the OP. I believe, IIRC you are referring to the FOAM Insulation, where as I am speaking about the m³ vs m² error.

TAM

Seymour Butz · 26th August 2008, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim?

Because for what ever reason, I am sometimes unable to "select text" a pdf.

Otherwise I would have.

AzCat has it.

Arus808 · 26th August 2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz

Because for what ever reason, I am sometimes unable to "select text" a pdf.

You can't select the text in the NIST documents (all of their documents have text as non-selectable- its protected work.

However, you COULD do a screen grab (all pc's can do it) and then host the image at like imageshack or elsewhere.

boloboffin · 26th August 2008, 08:43 PM

Or you can pop up a text editor and transcribe the piece you want to quote. Why, I remember having to do the same thing on what they called index cards when I wanted to liberate the text from what they used to call books.

mrbaracuda · 27th August 2008, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Arus808

You can't select the text in the NIST documents (all of their documents have text as non-selectable- its protected work.

Ah! Sneaky NWO bastards!

Seymour Butz · 27th August 2008, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Arus808

However, you COULD do a screen grab (all pc's can do it) and then host the image at like imageshack or elsewhere.

I'm too lazy for that.

Plus, I'm technologically challenged.

Jonnyclueless · 27th August 2008, 09:06 AM

While it's certainly not implausible that there be an error, it's kind of hard to have much of s discussion on it without the literal parts being presented. has anyone submitted it to the public comments? If not, they should so that it can be corrected if there is indeed an error.

24th August 2008, 06:31 AM	#1
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	Possible Error on WTC7 NIST report... Not a major problem. A truther caught this and I'm not sure. I actually posted this in another thread here but with Roundhead and his shenanigans, it got buried. (he states report but it is on the PDF) Here is what the truther found: Quote: Page 49 of the NIST report estimates fuel loads of 32 kg/m^3. This is a volume measurement. Converting metric to imperial units, the NIST report states that this fuel load is 6.4 lb/ft^2. This is an area unit. page 86 of the report. It clearly shows the estimated fuel loads and ALL estimates are given as area units. The erroneous 32 kg/m^3 has been correctly typed to be 32 kg/m^2 - an area unit. The floor of a building is measured by area, either m^2 or ft^2. NIST tried to estimate the amount of combustible material spread across the floors. They did not try to estimate the density of the combustible material. He pointed this out because I challenged all truthers to find one error on the report.

24th August 2008, 08:39 AM	#7
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	They mention the LDEO collapse times for WTC7 as being 5:20am, I wonder if that is also a typo
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	__________________ Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!

24th August 2008, 09:14 AM	#8
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,937	Originally Posted by e^n They mention the LDEO collapse times for WTC7 as being 5:20am, I wonder if that is also a typo That's when it was supposed to be brought down, with no cameras around to tape it, but some damned intern got the times mixed up.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

24th August 2008, 09:39 AM	#9
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	Originally Posted by Travis That's when it was supposed to be brought down, with no cameras around to tape it, but some damned intern got the times mixed up. Damn! Yet another mistake in the seemingly endless stream. I guess this will be the 168th smoking gun.
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	__________________ Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!

24th August 2008, 10:38 AM	#10
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650	The only REAL error I've found is : on page 35/115 NIST says that the SFRM on the girders didn't meet the specs for sprinklered or unsprinklered buildings... then on 45/115 they say that the SFRM met requirements. What gives NIST?
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650

24th August 2008, 06:43 AM	#2
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	I guess m² makes more sense.

24th August 2008, 07:07 AM	#3
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	So is it an error or a typo?

24th August 2008, 07:11 AM	#4
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	It's a typo. I was just so cocky to the truthers. I kind of have egg on my face.

24th August 2008, 07:18 AM	#5
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Oh, well, I found a typo, too. I guess that means Bush did it.

24th August 2008, 08:08 AM	#6
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	what? NIST made an error?? Inside Job!!!!! =)

24th August 2008, 10:45 AM	#11
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 208	This is why this version is only a draft and open to public comment. At a whopping 786 pages, there are BOUND to be a few typos and grammar mistakes. I submitted a public comment about the section on the collapse time for WTC7 where it says that the building fell 40% longer than free-fall speed. In the report, it has two nearly identical versions of the same paragraph which appear right after the other. My guess is the author decided to alter the original paragraph slightly, but then forgot to delete the original paragraph. You should send them an email about this. You can find the link to the page with instructions a few links below the link to the report, on the main page, wtc.nist.gov.
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 208	__________________ "It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty

24th August 2008, 10:49 AM	#12
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	1. To be "gotcha"ed by a bunch of loonitards should not cause you much distress... 2. Better to challenge them to find a "single error in fact". Calling a typo an "error" is kind of *********** silly, but what do you expect from the loonitards. TAM

24th August 2008, 10:52 AM	#14
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650	Originally Posted by T.A.M. 1. To be "gotcha"ed by a bunch of loonitards should not cause you much distress... 2. Better to challenge them to find a "single error in fact". Calling a typo an "error" is kind of *********** silly, but what do you expect from the loonitards. TAM Try reading it yourself and THEN say that. Believe me, I'm no moonbat troofer. I use the same handle over on ATS. Search for some of my posts and hopefully you'll see that loonitard does not in any way apply to moi.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650

24th August 2008, 11:07 AM	#15
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Herr Butz, mail zem zhen!

25th August 2008, 10:16 AM	#16
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Seymour Butz The only REAL error I've found is : on page 35/115 NIST says that the SFRM on the girders didn't meet the specs for sprinklered or unsprinklered buildings... then on 45/115 they say that the SFRM met requirements. What gives NIST? Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569

25th August 2008, 07:43 PM	#17
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: where the grass is greener. Posts: 1,618	Originally Posted by theprestige Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim? He was probably referring to the following passages: Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 Report, page xxxiii The design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City Building Code of 1968 (NYCBC), with which, by policy, it was to comply. The installed thickness of the thermal insulation on the floor beams was below that required for unsprinklered or sprinklered buildings, but it is unlikely that the collapse of WTC 7 could have been prevented even if the thickness had been consistent with building code requirements. Originally Posted by NIST WTC 7 Report, page 7 According to the 1968 version of the NYCBC and Local Law 16 (1984), a fully sprinklered high-rise building could follow the fire resistance requirements for Type 1C construction. For this construction category, columns were required to have a 2 h rating in the ASTM E 119 test; beams were required to have a 1 1/2 h rating. The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the fluted steel decking and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, 1/2 in. to be applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values.

26th August 2008, 01:38 PM	#18
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,698	Nice theory. No physical evidence.

26th August 2008, 04:53 PM	#19
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by Seymour Butz Try reading it yourself and THEN say that. Believe me, I'm no moonbat troofer. I use the same handle over on ATS. Search for some of my posts and hopefully you'll see that loonitard does not in any way apply to moi. I think we are speaking of different "errors" I was referring to the first typo mentioned in the OP. I believe, IIRC you are referring to the FOAM Insulation, where as I am speaking about the m³ vs m² error. TAM
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 26th August 2008 at 04:55 PM.

26th August 2008, 05:04 PM	#20
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650	Originally Posted by theprestige Why are you paraphrasing? Why not quote the exact passages you're talking about, verbatim? Because for what ever reason, I am sometimes unable to "select text" a pdf. Otherwise I would have. AzCat has it.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650

26th August 2008, 05:18 PM	#21
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	Originally Posted by Seymour Butz Because for what ever reason, I am sometimes unable to "select text" a pdf. You can't select the text in the NIST documents (all of their documents have text as non-selectable- its protected work. However, you COULD do a screen grab (all pc's can do it) and then host the image at like imageshack or elsewhere.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

26th August 2008, 08:43 PM	#22
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Or you can pop up a text editor and transcribe the piece you want to quote. Why, I remember having to do the same thing on what they called index cards when I wanted to liberate the text from what they used to call books.

27th August 2008, 01:25 AM	#23
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by Arus808 You can't select the text in the NIST documents (all of their documents have text as non-selectable- its protected work. Ah! Sneaky NWO bastards!

27th August 2008, 08:42 AM	#24
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650	Originally Posted by Arus808 However, you COULD do a screen grab (all pc's can do it) and then host the image at like imageshack or elsewhere. I'm too lazy for that. Plus, I'm technologically challenged.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650

27th August 2008, 09:06 AM	#25
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	While it's certainly not implausible that there be an error, it's kind of hard to have much of s discussion on it without the literal parts being presented. has anyone submitted it to the public comments? If not, they should so that it can be corrected if there is indeed an error.