What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


do you know anything about concrete?
'cause, it's real stiff, and therefore would add stiffness. the trusses cannot sag much, without first breaking free from the concrete to which they are integrally attached.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This from the civil engineer that I had to correct after he put forth the idea that the core columns had 6" of "layered" insulation.

You did not "correct" me in anything. NIST states that the core column fireproofing was comprised as such in their dead load hand written calculations from the SEs. As we do not have the structural documentation, I will go off of those hand written calculations.

I will say that with all the gypsum partition and other cementitous and spray-on fireproofing, there could have easily been 6" of insulation on at least a few sides of the columns.

Why else would it be added in the calculations for dead load if it didn't exist? In engineering we try to minimize cost. Adding 6" of firproofing that doesn't exist would not be very cost efficient. No?

And didn't have any idea that the ext columns, while they maintained the same exterior dimensions, were made from steel that got "thinner" as they got farther up, and was again corrected by me.

I will admit I was unaware that they got thinner (and also stronger I might add) until you pointed it out to me. You have still yet to show where NIST states where, how, when, and to what extent the steel transitioned.

And even though stated repeatedly that NIST never referenced the "swiss cheese" columns, whining about how important it was to his line of work, and then had to be shown, again by me, that NIST did address it.

My "whining" was about NIST not finding an answer. What you showed me (that they looked at it) proves nothing other than the same thing FEMA stated. It was a sulfer attack in a high temperature state. Well, no duh, what freeking caused it? So, again you have delusions of grandure that you've somehow "debunked" me.

Tsk, tsk Mr Griff. He who casts the first stone.......

I've never professed to be perfect.

On topic - Are you seriously suggesting that attaching a 4" slab would lend much stiffness to the floors? Seriously?

Since I was asking questions, I wasn't "suggesting" anything. But, yes, it would add stiffness to the trusses. I'm just wondering if NIST and others have taken this into acount.

reply to post by Griff


Yes Griff, I've debunked and corrected you many times, on many subjects.

You're just too prideful to admit it.

Originally posted by Griff

My "whining" was about NIST not finding an answer.

Lie.

You weren't even aware that it was even in the NIST

Originally posted by Griff

I will admit I was unaware that they got thinner (and also stronger I might add) until you pointed it out to me.

Lie.

How can you show that they got stronger, when as you say, we don't have the docs?

Originally posted by Griff

You did not "correct" me in anything. NIST states that the core column fireproofing was comprised as such in their dead load hand written calculations from the SEs. As we do not have the structural documentation, I will go off of those hand written calculations.

Lie.

The hand written doc that you once posted was indeed a sheet used to figure out the dead load. You posted that as proof of 6"......

But your post had that critical info cropped out so that you could use it to put forth your knowingly wrong statement that it had 6" of insulation.

When I again "corrected" you that this much insulation would give a 15+ hour fire rating and it was ridiculous, you agreed and dropped your claim.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Lie.

How can you show that they got stronger, when as you say, we don't have the docs?

Call me a liar all you will. It's stated in the NIST document you pointed me to that the steel got thinner and stronger. Remember they list strengths of steel ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi?

Don't take it out on me that you can't prove anything with the NIST report. As this thread is about.

Because you can't show where they state just how the steel transitioned. Even how and where it became thinner. They just state it got thinner.

As far as the evaporation of the steel. NIST didn't prove anything other than it happened while that one column was in a horizontal position. Not what caused the evaporation. So again, call me a liar all you like, but the truth does not lie.

As far as the fireproofing. Prove that there wasn't 6-inches of plaster and spray-on.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by Griff

 

Yes Griff, I've debunked and corrected you many times, on many subjects.

You're just too prideful to admit it.

Care to address the question at hand? I notice you haven't mentioned it yet, only things youve said have been directly at Griff. Where I come from thats called a crush...

As far as the strength of the perimeter columns:

Material substitutions of higher strength steels
were common in the perimeter columns and floor trusses.

Chemical analyses of the flange, outer web, and spandrel plates of the exterior panel sections were found
to be nearly identical for a given plate gauge and yield strength, as were inner web plates with yield
strengths equal to 80 ksi or 100 ksi.

Samples were available of all 12 strength
levels of perimeter panel steel,

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by Griff

As far as the evaporation of the steel. NIST didn't prove anything other than it happened while that one column was in a horizontal position. Not what caused the evaporation.

Here's what's so sad about this question.

NIST proved that the corrosion happened in a high temp environment, and was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur.

That's your answer. You just can't accept it.

So now you move the goal posts and want to know what the source of sulfur was. Right?

But you have no idea if it's even technologically feasible to do that. So instead of doing some research, since it's so important to your profession, and find that answer for yourself, you take the lazy way out and post this drivel on a message board.

I know that your "stated" concern is whether or not gypsum can contribute to a collapse through this mechanism. But the MINIMUM temp for eutectic melting is what, 800C+?

So the steel would first have to reach this temp BEFORE it could undergo this reaction. And steel loses how much strength at 800C again?

Think about that for a second.

Originally posted by Griff
As far as the strength of the perimeter columns:

My statement stands. Lie.

You don't know the thickness of the steel, so you can't prove anything.

The only thing we agree on is that the grade of steel was stronger as it went higher.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Care to address the question at hand? I notice you haven't mentioned it yet, only things youve said have been directly at Griff. Where I come from thats called a crush...

No, he's about the only one here that I don't consider a lunatic.

Plus , as a civil engineer, I hold him to a higher standard than all the CTer sheep that believe everyhting that they see on a youtube video.

Besides, I don't give reach arounds...

reply to post by Seymour Butz

lol. ok at least youre trying to help. I think Griff has pretty high standards, he's the one that got me to question the BOTH sides. I thought he was a OS supporter at first becasue he shot down so many CT'ers.

Anyway, the question remains, I admit I wrapped it in a snide remark, but what is your stand on the OP (the question that it asks really)?

reply to post by jprophet420


The entire 10,000 page document PROVES that all CT theories are bunk.

Just like in any investigation, there will be some unanswered questions and areas that will need to be filled in with circumstantial evidence. This is the real world, not some tv show like CSI.

The CT crowd holds the standard of proof to absolute proof, and I find that ridiculous.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This from the civil engineer that I had to correct after he put forth the idea that the core columns had 6" of "layered" insulation.

You did not "correct" me in anything. [...]

So, again you have delusions of grandure that you've somehow "debunked" me.

That's the first thing I thought. Why would "Seymour Butz" consider it a significant event to think he'd corrected you on something, so that he keeps bringing it up in future discussions? Maybe something to do with the fact that he isn't the professional engineer in the conversation. Or is it Professional Engineer in caps now?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The entire 10,000 page document PROVES that all CT theories are bunk.

Well that's what this thread is about Mr. "Butz!" The proof that is supposed to be in there.

Put up or shut up?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
WTC 1 & 2 Did not fall straight down. Please try not to quote me, but I believe the majority of the debris on both towers landed outside their own foot prints.

Bsbray may have the info. If I find it i will post it.

Most of the debris was thrown outside of the footprints radially.

This is the actual diagram from FEMA:




So the center of gravity was still in the footprints; it could be argued that the towers did "fall" ("fall" is the worse word here) "straight down."

reply to post by bsbray11


Hmmm, a PE that can't get stuff right........

Yeah, it's important cuz his opinion holds weight. That is, until I show that he's all wrong, hasn't even read the NIST report, and still feels like he has the moral authority to question something he obviously knows nothing about in detail.....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well that's what this thread is about Mr. "Butz!" The proof that is supposed to be in there.

It's all in there.

You refuse to believe any of it. Instead, your religious-like belief in CT's make more sense to you, even though there is NO credible evidence to believe in any of them.

That's your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Hmmm, a PE that can't get stuff right........

Even if he was wrong on something, I don't understand why it turns you on so much. He obviously had to get something right to pass that bastard of an exam that you probably know nothing about, let alone the subject matter it encompasses (his field of professional expertise, btw).

I could say something smart-assed here like "When was the last time you passed your PE, "Seymour"?" or mention how you just got schooled with that concrete attachment comment (not surprising considering you aren't the PE), but by avoiding posting smart-assed things like that, I hope you'll notice that one would happen to come across as less of a prick to people.

I'm still waiting for you to get back to the thread's topic:

What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?

PS -- Just telling me that it's proof and that it's my problem if I can't find it anywhere, doesn't resolve the OP. Goes a long way towards showing all of your true colors, though, that no one can rise up to this god-forsaken challenge.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by bsbray11]