Data manipulation by NIST?

I have found an anomaly in the NIST report that I feel has some value. Here is the original NIST drawing of a typical floor plan. Below it is my drawing of a scaled typical floor plan using the dimensions given by NIST.

Here is NISTS drawing.

img509.imageshack.us...

Here is my drawing. They are both of the same scale in respect to the outer columns, walls and trusses. But look at the difference of the inner column scale.

img432.imageshack.us...

Now why would NIST dilliberately do this? My opinion is that they came to a theory that the trusses failed. So, to make it appear that the inner columns were on a much grander scale bigger than the trusses, they showed an unscaled drawing that shows much larger columns. So, when people read how big the columns were and then see this drawing, they equate that the trusses must have been string cheese (when they were not).

I have a problem with this because in my engineering reports, we have to be 100% accurate in drawings and what we report. How can I trust NIST when I know that their data has been manipulated like this? If I happen to have a drawing that is not to scale, then I have to note that it is not to scale. I haven't seen anything stating in the NIST report that that drawing is not to scale.

Edit: Just so people know, my drawing is a scaled drawing from what NIST has given for the dimensions of the inner columns on that particular floor (high in the towers).


[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

What are the inner column dimensions given by NIST?

Where is the data manipulation Griff? I mean, if you are talking about the scale of the 'beams' that seem to be a little larger than yours, I think you are really reaching. I will give you credit for trying though

Generally, isn't there also a scale supplied with a blueprint, at least that is what I remember from my architecture classes in college. Besides, the one you made to me looks weaked at first glance. so I don't get your point about not scaled correctly.

Here ya go. This is what they give. But columns that are in some pictures of the rubble clearly show that they were bigger than this as you go down the building. But here is what NIST gives as the dimensions of the columns.

img516.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by esdad71
Where is the data manipulation Griff? I mean, if you are talking about the scale of the 'beams' that seem to be a little larger than yours, I think you are really reaching. I will give you credit for trying though

Generally, isn't there also a scale supplied with a blueprint, at least that is what I remember from my architecture classes in college. Besides, the one you made to me looks weaked at first glance. so I don't get your point about not scaled correctly.

The data manipulation is the obvious fact that the NIST columns appear to be larger than they really are in their drawing. Actually the "beams" are the same scale in my drawing as theirs. Do you mean the inner columns? Then you would be correct. You don't find this curious? My drawing is scaled relative to everything that is in the drawing. Theirs is not. They have one scale for the outer columns, walls and trusses and a different scale for the inner columns. That is misleading to a regular person to say the least. And yes, a drawing should have a scale. Unless the drawing is NOT to scale...which the NIST drawing definately is NOT to scale...in which it should note that it is not to scale. Hence, the manipulation part. It should definately say NOT TO SCALE...especially since this is suppossed to be a professional report. If they can't be professional in their reporting, what else aren't they being professional about?

BTW...what does weaked mean? My drawing is to scale...given the dimensions of the outer columns, walls and inner columns given by NIST. You make it sound like I'm the one being misleading when it's NIST who is being misleading.

Originally posted by esdad71
I mean, if you are talking about the scale of the 'beams' that seem to be a little larger than yours, I think you are really reaching.

The core columns tapered off in size as they neared the top for structural reasons.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were using dimensions for lower floors. I don't even think they really specify where the columns taper, but just some selective figures on by how much. I don't even think they account for all of the inner columns' sizes either, and they certainly didn't release the plans or anything comprehensive; only bits of info here and there as they need it to look somewhat competent.

The two figures immediately preceding the one you posted (2-11 and 2-12), illustrate the exact sizes of the various inner columns and where they are positioned.

In context, it is quite clear the image you posted (figure 2-13: which is meant to illustrate the floor-framing) uses a uniform symbol for the inner columns. They (inner columns) are not labeled in 2-13, and there is no scale.

When you take it out of context, sure it is misleading.

Actually if you look at the figure you are talking about (2-12), even they don't fully say which column is what type. I am going off of both drawings to come up with my drawing (2-12 and 2-13...with the information from 2-11). I used the drawing that labels a few columns (2-12) as a start to figure out the column layout. That is how I noticed the inconsistancy in the first place.

Even the largest of the inner columns (the columns in the middle of each perimeter wall in the inner core structure) are shown way too big in their typical floor plan (2-13). So, I still stand behind what I am presenting here.

Edit: Try looking at figures 2-11 and 2-12 again. Can you say that NIST has identified the placement and type of every column? If you can, then I'd be pleased to see it because both Valhall and myself can't differenciate to 100% what type and what orientation every column is from their report. Again, either deliberately not giving info or just a major blunder. Either way, I still can't trust NIST's report as professional.

Edit: The largest columns are not the corner columns but the middle columns along the "walls" of the inner core structure....my bad....couldn't find that drawing at first. I'm going off of stuff I have already printed and not looking at the NIST report at the moment.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

It is not a blueprint, it is a guideline? Would you attmept to build a building with that, no, it is not to scale. Like I said, good find, but I do not think NIST was attempting to adhere to any scale in the pictures as you were with the symbols that you used.

When looking at floorplans, everything needs to be to scale so you can use to build a house.

Can you say that NIST has identified the placement and type of every column?

So now that we see there is nothing misleading about the size of the inner columns, you are unhappy that the placement of every column is not clear to you. *Even though, with use of the captions, the size and position of every last inner-column on floor 84 can be identified.

I notice in your version, you have made all the columns appear as the same diminutive size: about 52cm, when in fact they should be about 55cm.

So from my humble viewpoint, you are the one who is manipulating the data.

Ok...I'll give your arguement some validity. You are right, there is no scale...which is what I'm suggesting is misleading from NIST. That's the manipulation. When you look at figure 2-13 and see these massive columns compared to the trusses (beams) you say to yourself, well I can see how the trusses could have failed seeing as they look so small compared to the core columns. Which, when you look at my scaled drawing, you can see that the core columns are not that much bigger (on a grander scale) than the trusses.

Question: Which of the drawings makes it seem that the trusses are smaller and weaker? The one with oversized columns or the one with columns scaled the same as the trusses? It's easier if you can see them side by side. If we could scan an 11x17 here I could have posted them side by side.

Originally posted by vor75
So now that we see there is nothing misleading about the size of the inner columns, you are unhappy that the placement of every column is not clear to you. *Even though, with use of the captions, the size and position of every last inner-column on floor 84 can be identified.

I notice in your version, you have made all the columns appear as the same diminutive size: about 52cm, when in fact they should be about 55cm.

So from my humble viewpoint, you are the one who is manipulating the data.

Ok...I'd like to see where the columns are and what type of every column. Do it and post. Show me how you got that information also. For one in figure 2-11 The first (biggest) column identified is column 504, the second is column 701, the third is columns 1001, 1008, 501 and 508, the fourth is columns 607 and 609, the fifth column is column 705. That's 9 columns identified out of 47. How does that constitute them showing the size and position of every last inner-column on floor 84?

What are you talking about with the 52cm and 55cm? I drew that drawing in AutoCad using the dimensions given by NIST. AutoCad is an easy way to draw things to a PERFECT scale. I didn't use an engineers or architectural scale to draw that. So, that part of your arguement does not have any validity whatsoever. I am not being manipulative...NIST is.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by vor75
I notice in your version, you have made all the columns appear as the same diminutive size: about 52cm, when in fact they should be about 55cm.

Maybe if you're using a scale to measure them on the computer. Look carefully, I have used the dimensions given by NIST to draw them in AutoCad to scale. They are different if you look closely enough...obviously you haven't.

Edit: I have manipulated no data and only used dimensions given by NIST. I highly take offense to being called a liar....thank you very much.

edit again: I've been spelling dimension...dimention...duh.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

This might clear things up.

Little AutoCad lesson.

First, you draw things in what is called model space (real time). Meaning that if NIST says the walls are 207 feet 4 inches...you draw it 207 feet 4 inches. If NIST says that a column is 22 in by 22in and having a thickness of 1.31 in......that is exactly how you draw it.

Then, you scale things down in what is called paper space (scalable space) to a scale that will show the drawing on the size paper you want to show.

So, when I state that I used the dimensions from NIST, that is exactly what I did. I scaled the drawing to the same scale as the NIST drawings outer walls/columns. I did this by overlapping the NIST drawing over mine until my scale was the same. That is how I noticed the huge discrepancy in their inner core column scale.

Clearer now? I should have put this information in my first post. Sorry for any confusion.