It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Valhall
1- Of all the pictures and videos I've seen, I guess I missed those.
2-Why would they work so hard to make a floor failure model that didn't even match the data?
3-Also, if we are to buy the sagging, walking floor failure model why didn't any of the INTERIOR connectors fail? They were almost ALL intact. The interior portion of the building should be hotter than the exterior walls due to convection at the exterior and lack of same at the interior, but the floor connections remained intact at the interior core columns. What do you have to say about that?
4-Also, since NIST failed to address this perplexing situation, could you tell me what the core columns were doing during collapse becasue the specimens of outer truss connectors failing in a downward motion while the interior connections remaining intact gives the appearance that the floors were falling WITH the core columns but AHEAD OF the exterior columns. Can you explain that for me?
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
Perhaps what I should say is that you should focus on their arguments and calculations (if you can understand them) rather than any appeal to authority.
Just saying that one guy is a mechanical engineer, therefor he's right is a bad way to look at it. Gordon Ross is a mechanical engineer and his calculations were very, very wrong.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to take no one's word for this. I was being glib because of Griff's background...that and I meant it as well. Griff's word is as important as either one of the guys being beat about.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by Valhall
1- Of all the pictures and videos I've seen, I guess I missed those.
2-Why would they work so hard to make a floor failure model that didn't even match the data?
3-Also, if we are to buy the sagging, walking floor failure model why didn't any of the INTERIOR connectors fail? They were almost ALL intact. The interior portion of the building should be hotter than the exterior walls due to convection at the exterior and lack of same at the interior, but the floor connections remained intact at the interior core columns. What do you have to say about that?
4-Also, since NIST failed to address this perplexing situation, could you tell me what the core columns were doing during collapse becasue the specimens of outer truss connectors failing in a downward motion while the interior connections remaining intact gives the appearance that the floors were falling WITH the core columns but AHEAD OF the exterior columns. Can you explain that for me?
1- yes you have.
2-YOU say that it doesn't fit the data.
3- this is YOUR analysis.
4- this is YOUR conclusion.
If you're going to disagree with the NIST report, the best thing to do would be to show why they are wrong first, and then show why yours are correct.
To simply say that they got it wrong doesn't mean a thing.....
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
It actually seems to me that you give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-establishment and assume that the engineers are always wrong unless someone can explain to you, over your non-understanding of what they're talking about, what they're talking about.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
It actually seems to me that you give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-establishment and assume that the engineers are always wrong unless someone can explain to you, over your non-understanding of what they're talking about, what they're talking about.
Actually, it seems to me you didn't read very close. I am an engineer.
Me not have big problem following the bouncing ball!
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- yes you have.
2-YOU say that it doesn't fit the data.
3- this is YOUR analysis.
4- this is YOUR conclusion.
If you're going to disagree with the NIST report, the best thing to do would be to show why they are wrong first, and then show why yours are correct.
To simply say that they got it wrong doesn't mean a thing.....
Originally posted by talisman
In all fairness, Valhall has linked to ATS threads where more precise information is given, you can't expect the person to keep labouring and typing in front of the computer with pages and pages of text to only repeat what was previously written.
Originally posted by Valhall
*smacks Seymour's butt*
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
Valhal, could you post some links to what you think are your most relevant works on NIST? I'd like to take a look.
Originally posted by Valhall
Well, if I'd known that smacking your backside was all it took for you to be a bit nicer to me, I'd a smacked a long time ago!
Originally posted by Valhall
1-First, they never found a single core column that exhibited exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.
2-You state the NIST sims predicted matched the id'd columsn VERY WELL. No they didn't. Else they wouldn't have gone above 250 C (see paragraph above).
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- wrong. They were unable to id any columns, because the paint burns off at 250C. If you reject that, can you tell me why?
2- wrong again. The 2 core columns were from the upper and lower boundaries of the fire zone. The NIST sim predicted that those core columns would see about 250C. Which is exactly what the paint analysis told them.
Originally posted by Valhall
In fact, it makes it virtually impossible to get them very high. And that goes with the data the NIST collected when testing the inner and outer columsn of the building.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Originally posted by Valhall
Well, if I'd known that smacking your backside was all it took for you to be a bit nicer to me, I'd a smacked a long time ago!
Just curious... Um... Val.. Can you please give me one of those?
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by Valhall
In fact, it makes it virtually impossible to get them very high. And that goes with the data the NIST collected when testing the inner and outer columsn of the building.
So I guess that the Cardington fire tests, where a wood fire drove steel of a similar size to near 1000C in 20 minutes was faked?
Granted, this was unprotected steel, but if you don't believe that 200 tons of 500 mph shrapnel couldn't at least partially remove drywall and SFRM (check out the test results for partially removed insulation, and/or reports/photos of SFRM being absent on the trusses) ...... then I don't know what to say.
Originally posted by Valhall
I reject that because they state their test findings for interior columns and exterior columns.
Originally posted by Valhall
We're analyzing something unrelated to the towers now, right? Because we don't need to look at information OUTSIDE the report in order to review the report. If there is something OUTSIDE the report that is critical to the veracity of the report, it will be INSIDE the report - right? Let's stick to the NIST report, okay?