Do NIST's computer models meet the International Building Codes?

Originally posted by exponent
It depends which columns you're talking about,

I know there were columns running up the middle of the building, all the way from the ground to the top. Though they may have tapered near the top, like they did in the towers, I know they would have also been solidly connected (welded) end-to-end to make a single solid object for every physical intent and purpose. They would have been similarly joined with beams and bracing all the way, also bolted and welded such that you are effectively dealing with a single solid piece of steel. That's the way they are built. I want to see, whether in a model or creative drawing or whatever, what happens to all of these columns as the building moves in an accordion-like motion down into itself.

There was a significant amount of steel in that building:





When was the last time you saw a piece of steel that fat? That's not even a column. I find it very sorry to find that there are no better images of WTC7's actual structure available to us, though I suspect NIST might have some.



There are articles from right after its construction where Larry Silverstein talked about how you could gut every other floor and it would still meet all legal codes (which are already pretty strict on skyscrapers because of the danger they represent in crowded areas), and it was built that way on purpose in case tenants wanted extra space over their heads. This was built to be a very robust building.

there was relatively little core bracing and the exterior walls worked to handle the rest of the lateral loads.

I find that hard to believe based on what little I have seen of the construction of the building. Are there no other photos of the construction, or any relevant photographs of the structure at all? I'm not even going to ask for the original structural documentation, because I know if NIST isn't giving that up for the towers then they certainly aren't going to give it up for Building 7. That reasoning may not make sense to you but I swear to you that's how it's going to work out. You also have to understand that you can tell me things like this, that there was no real bracing, but I'll never just believe it. I'll consider it, and even entertain the idea, but I'll never just take anything for granted. I have this horrible disease, especially since I have become suspicious based on all the "incompetence" and etc. that I've seen, and for me to believe there was little bracing I would actually have to sit and look and come to the realization myself that there was little bracing. At least there should be better ways to convince me that this building really did fall down all by itself.

I want to see how these columns physically move, where they go and how they go there, as this accordion motion takes place with the whole building.

What you request is probably beyond our ability to simulate

I very seriously doubt that, and at any rate it only sounds like a cop-out. Someone should at least try to draw this out and explain how the hell it's supposed to happen. It's one of those physical behaviors that must be completely unprecedented and yet it makes or breaks the entire hypothesis, so someone (you would THINK) would have said something about it by now. And I still haven't seen anything to address it when it should be one of the first problems they would tackle when looking at global collapse, since those columns were what was holding up the entire global structure ultimately, and knocking them out here or there is still going to leave them intact everywhere else just because of the solidity of the construction and they way everything was welded together. It just doesn't make sense in my mind, but that's where sense is going to have to be made if I'm going to buy this. And to make sense I would very much like to be able to visualize what exactly they are saying happened here.

If you were to take an engineering course however I am sure they would teach you about common plastic column deformations,

Why is it that deformation problems never turn into dynamics? I have no issue with deformations, that is what fire does, but I don't ever remember having to work with deformations that suddenly turn into acceleration problems, let alone where the acceleration is a=~9.8m/s^2. It wouldn't even be the same subject within physics. Deformations don't move like that.

Deformations really are irrelevant here. Looking at forces/temperatures required for certain deformations, you should really be looking for the ultimate strength. Things didn't just bend and sag, they actually broke free and severed at some point. This is the miraculous "big bang" or "primordial soup" moment that has yet to be demonstrated as possible, in either any lab test or simulation. Except, instead of dealing with theoretical physics or biology, we're dealing with mechanics. Physics 101 stuff. So the lack of a demonstration here means a little more than it does for the big bang.

I also think it was the German peoples' fault for allowing Hitler into power, even though the Nazis actively manipulated the population. Despite being constantly lied to and manipulated, I think it was ultimately their own responsibility to be able to see through it and do what they should have done.

I think I'm going to skip answering this extremely politically charged section.

I hope you don't take offense to my curiosity, but I don't suppose I'm supposed to take this to mean you sympathize with fascism and submissive populations?

Can you list those basic assumptions, what do you think Dr Astaneh-Asl believes about the collapses?

He has only stated what his work has shown him. I don't believe he has offered an explanation as to what caused the collapses, only that his work has demonstrated that the ASCE published inaccurate information and that he was never able to reproduce or verify it himself. On the contrary, he was able to contradict what they published, and this is when and why he went to the Asssociated Press.

In scientific discourse, let's say you have something that disproves a certain theory. I don't believe it is written anywhere that you have to have something better to replace it with or else shut up. Correct me if I am mistaken. It sounds a little too much like 2nd grade to me.

NIST, unless they would actually admit to the same thing Dr. Abolhassan did, just keeps changing parameters until what they get matches what they see, no matter what those adjusted parameters imply.

Uh, in a way they did, but not as reckless as you seem to be portraying.

Whether you deem it to be reckless or not, it isn't a rigorous proof of anything in the classical sense of the word. They invalidated their results. If you'll entertain them with it, that's fine, but the models don't mean anything more than the parameters they put into them. That's the bottom line. And those parameters were arbitrary.

NIST established a range of input values that were plausible and then ran model scenarios throughout this plausible range. Adjusting values to match visual evidence is not somehow 'cheating', as long as you don't adjust values outside plausible limits.

Then all you have in the end is something NIST calls "plausible", and I would suggest from what I have seen that many people find even that terminology arguable. I certainly don't agree, with either their hypothesis or their methodology.

Can you show me where they have predicted anything unrealistic or impossible?

I can lead you to an example of that information, yes. The amount of heat they must assume was present, for example, to transfer enough heat, fast enough, to raise the temperatures of the steel enough within the time frame, are outrageous.

From one of their tests:

A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

1,900,000 to 3,400,000 watts of power is equivalent to a few hundred wood stoves (look up wattage ratings for them yourself and compare), in a compartment comparable to a living room. It is an absolutely outrageous amount of energy to assume. This is what got NIST results. Possible? Theoretically, sure. Plausible? The only reason people don't say anything is probably because they don't even realize what these numbers are implying.

Specifically, it got NIST these results:

A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)

In their own report, they analyzed over a hundred pieces of debris and found no evidence of steel heated beyond 250 C. Only one piece was heated even to that temperature, and it was most definitely not uniformly heated to that temperature because that was only the surface temperature that affected the paint. Temperatures above that were present in the flames, of course, but to actually heat the steel itself uniformly to that temperature is another matter entirely, which I'm sure you are capable of appreciating.

It is "possible" to heat the steel to, say, 700 C in the given circumstances, but to do it, NIST required heat equivalent to the output of hundreds of wood stoves' in a compartment very small by relation. You could not fit that many stoves into such a space. And, of course, they have no direct evidence of that ever occuring, just as they have no evidence of there being so much heat within the buildings. These are just numbers they are arbitrarily deciding upon, simply because they can get results with them.

Yes errors do occur, yes investigations can be shown to have incorrect conclusions and overturned. However, you cannot simply assume that because this has happened, that it will happen in NISTs case.

I was simply trying to open you up to the possibility, since it is still a possibility.

NISTs theory is strong, well supported by evidence and there is little to no evidence contradicting any of it.

That is what we are discussing right now. We disagree.

NIST is not infallible, and they have certainly made mistakes already in their investigation, but none of the mistakes uncovered come anywhere close to jeopardising their findings.

We also differ here, in that I don't believe they ever validated their findings in the first place, and there is nothing to jeoparize. I am not in a position to make any argument except that the arguments NIST has made, were not built upon a steady foundation. This stems from neglecting evidence that did not fit their investigation's first and only hypothesis, and changing parameters in tests until they simply felt comfortable in the visual match, for what very little of the collapses they actually decided to model.

I ran across these a few years ago, this may explain why they cant release what they already know at higher paygrades.

this is the dustification of steel observed on cnn and other video of same event from different angles one really close up.

video.google.com...

humm, could this be interfering with their investigation,, a ABOVE TOP SECRET WEAPON... >? if so, then Judy maybe right with her opening comment..

Note: Totovader video's have been removed - replaced with debunk crap .. real crap... they dont even try to lie, its that dumb. check it out... google video TOTOVADER... it use to show video and pictures of product of a new weapon/science .. dustification of steel and deformation of over 4,000 vehicles as far away as a qtr. of a Mile were affected. scary stuff... just under the surface..

Death Ray from Space... well yea, if you notice the INTERNATIONAL space station was flying over NYC during the events of 911... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck, we have with others a anti-armor device that is mounted on the space station. evidence points to anyway.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by BornPatriot]

Originally posted by bsbray11
The amount of heat they must assume was present, for example, to transfer enough heat, fast enough, to raise the temperatures of the steel enough within the time frame, are outrageous.

From one of their tests:

A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

1,900,000 to 3,400,000 watts of power is equivalent to a few hundred wood stoves (look up wattage ratings for them yourself and compare), in a compartment comparable to a living room.

I did look for myself.

From what I found, it's not all that outrageous.

A typical pellet stove uses 4 lbs of fuel to make 40,000 BTU, or 11,720W/h.

A wood stove will use more fuel, by weight. I'm unable to find any specific data, but we will assume double that, or 8 lbs.

Combustibles loading was around 8 lbs/sq foot. So for every sq foot of floor area, there's enough fuel there for 1 wood burning stove to put out 40,000BTU.

The test room was 23 x 11.8 = 271 sq feet.

So 271 woodstoves x 40,000 BTU or 11,720 watts....

That equals 3.1 MW/h output, the higher range of the test.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Just to get a grasp on what you are talking about, here is an illustration I found from plans for a 24 x 24 foot garage:



www.niagaradesigns.com...

So if you cut that building in half, that is a very close estimate to the room we are dealing with here.

Here is a stove:




Here are 270 of them:




Just taking your own numbers for granted, that is what you are saying is "not all that outrageous." How outrageous will you tolerate, exactly? In that given amount of space, which was just office space (as in, the kind of office where people worked on a daily basis -- desks, chairs, computers, paper, cubicle walls, etc.), NIST assumed that the burning papers, plastics, etc., produced a fire with heat and a power rating comparable to all of this. In fact, they had to, to get their models to work.

If you consider yourself a skeptic, be skeptical of this assumption that NIST has made, which they made not because they found physical evidence to indicate it, but because it's what they needed to get an appreciable amount of expansion in the steel. Specifically, this is what they needed simply to heat a thin steel section (a truss) to 700 C in their lab. Again, they found no samples with evidence of such heating, not beyond 250 C. The fires in the WTC towers did not last very long, which is why NIST has to make them appear so powerful to get the required amount of work done in the given amount of time. Even to heat up and roast a turkey in there would take a considerable fraction of the total time the fires burned before collapse (WTC2 only burned something like 45 minutes, and it was struck lower down, near thicker columns and etc., and it's entry was further from the core), let alone "cooking" the structure itself to 700 C. Steel can also transfer heat out to all the surrounding steel, wicking it through the structure towards colder areas, because it is a good conductor of heat and that's how thermodynamics works. We would be seeing steel glow in broad daylight, a bright cherry red, if it were truly heated to that temperature. It would be impossible not to glow like that. You have to try to take all of this into account, because all of it plays into the equation. This is what makes or breaks NIST's hypothesis, because this is the actual data they used.

Now this is the part where people find ways to ignore or minimize this in their heads, or easiest of all, just don't even think about it, and then come back later just to say once again that NIST never assumed anything unrealistic or etc. in their models, that they've never seen such a thing, etc., etc.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


In that given amount of space, which was just office space (as in, the kind of office where people worked on a daily basis -- desks, chairs, computers, paper, cubicle walls, etc.), NIST assumed that the burning papers, plastics, etc., produced a fire with heat and a power rating comparable to all of this. In fact, they had to, to get their models to work.

But it would depend on the fuel loading per square foot, wouldn't it?

If for every sq foot, there's enough fuel for the woodstove to put out 40k BTU, why is it wrong to then say that the heat output should equal a woodstove for every square foot?

If the fuel loading was 4 lbs, then a realistic estimate would be a woodstove for every 2 sq feet, and so on.

While it's certainly dramatic to quote the number of woodstoves, I think a little investigation shows it to be realistic. I fail to see the problem here....

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you consider yourself a skeptic, be skeptical of this assumption, which they made not because they found physical evidence to support it, but because it's what they needed to get an appreciable amount of expansion in the steel. Specifically, this is what they needed simply to heat the steel to 700 C.

Oops, you added some.

I'm taking the opposite tack here. I find that the 271 woodstoves to be a reasonably accurate estimate, based on the fuel load per sq ft.

They then used this heat input and determined that this would in fact heat the steel to the above numbers.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Seymour, I was not expecting to convince you that the amount of heat energy they expect from office cubicles to be ridiculous. In fact, I debated responding to you for a few minutes because I just took you off my ignore list not very long ago.

To sum things up, though, I do not believe this,



if set on fire, would equate to this:



[edit on 23-11-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, that's fine then.

In an earlier post, you criticized those that didn't investigate into this, so I did. Granted, at first blush, your statement about hundreds of woodstoves seemed to back your claim that NIST was using a ridiculous heat number.

Instead, I found that based on fuel loads/sq ft, their estimates aren't outrageous at all. I backed up my statement with facts that I can support, on request, to various websites.

So my question to you is: what vetting did you do to figure out whether or not the hundreds of woodstoves claim is indeed an indication of "fudging" by NIST. Because it seems, and don't take this as a knock against you, that you did nothing.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I did look for myself.

From what I found, it's not all that outrageous.

One thing to note is that stoves are designed for higher end output.

Maximize your efficiency. Heat the room you’re in. The 2100 Millennium has the smallest footprint in the Quadra-Fire line, and still provides the performance you expect—more than enough to heat a large room or small home. The patented four-point combustion technology burns the wood gasses and smoke to give your maximum heat from your wood load.

www.quadrafire.com...

Not so much for open air fires.

A typical pellet stove uses 4 lbs of fuel to make 40,000 BTU, or 11,720W/h.

You need to check your units. BTU doesn't convert to W/hr. BTU converts to W-Hr.

A wood stove will use more fuel, by weight. I'm unable to find any specific data, but we will assume double that, or 8 lbs.

Specifications

13,00 to 32,000 Btu/hr with EPA test fuel
Peak Btu/Hour Output: 40,800
Heating Capacity: up to 1,400 sq. ft. †
Maximum Log Length: 18”/16" ideal
Firebox Capacity: 1.46 cubic feet
EPA Certified: 2.1 grams/hour
Thermal Efficiency: 78.15%
Weight: 300 lbs.

† Heating capacity and efficiency may differ due to climate, building construction and condition, amount and quality of insulation, location of the fireplace, type of fuel used and air movement in the home. Btu output will vary, depending on the type of fuel used. Units require standard maintenance in accordance with the owner's manual.

www.quadrafire.com...

From the following site, the average density of wood is 500 kg/m^3 (31.21 lbs/ft^3)

www.simetric.co.uk...

With a capacity of 1.46 ft^3, the weight of wood in this wood stove would be about 45.6 lbs.

Let's assume the area to be 1 foot^2. Then this stove would hold 45.6lbs/ft^2 load to have an output of 32,000 BTU/Hr or 9,378 W.

Combustibles loading was around 8 lbs/sq foot. So for every sq foot of floor area, there's enough fuel there for 1 wood burning stove to put out 40,000BTU.

8 lbs/ft^2 of combustibles loading is 17% of one of the above wood stoves. Which would be 5614 BTU/Hr.

The test room was 23 x 11.8 = 271 sq feet.

So 271 woodstoves x 40,000 BTU or 11,720 watts....

That equals 3.1 MW/h output, the higher range of the test.

271 X 5614 = 1,521,403 BTU/Hr. X .293 = 445,771 W

www.engineersedge.com...

A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

445,771 W equals 0.446 MW which is not even close to the 1.9 to 3.4 MW of power used.

For the lower end of 1.9 MW of power, they need 4 stoves worth per square foot.

Now, I emplore you. Is this "plausible"?

Originally posted by Griff

With a capacity of 1.46 ft^3, the weight of wood in this wood stove would be about 45.6 lbs.

Let's assume the area to be 1 foot^2. Then this stove would hold 45.6lbs/ft^2 load to have an output of 32,000 BTU/Hr or 9,378 W.

Nice work Griff.

But you're assuming that a fully loaded woodbox, with no airspace in the box (impossible by the way - I know, I have one) is needed to get 32kBTU/hr. We don't know if that's true or not. I'm not sure if you're saying that the entire 45 lbs would need to be burned in an hour too. Are you? Remember that fire engineers figure that a typical office content fire burns up all its contents in what, an hour? 1 1/2 hrs? I forget what it is exactly now.

What we need to find is how much wood, by weight, is burned to get 32k BTU, right? Or a typical BTU contained per lb of typical cordwood and use the efficiency number of the stove ( which I'm assuming to mean the % BTU extracted from the available BTU from the wood burned ) to try and get a reasonable weight of wood burned to get the 32k BTU. I couldn't find either of those numbers. But I'll grant you, I really didn't look all that hard either, LOL. And then, if we REALLY want to be accurate, we need to find out what the materials NIST used in their typical office, what the amount was for each, and the typical BTU in each of those materials. I'll leave that assignment to you, Mr Phelps. LOLOL....

That's why I used the pellet stove in my example, because they give a BTU output for a given weight of pellets burned. Then I doubled it to make it a little more reasonable.

Anecdotally, I can say that my woodbox is slightly smaller, the stove puts out 30kBTU, and a loaded box burns for a couple of hours. So I'm very sure that your assumptions are in error.

Additionally, you made a good point about open air, or something similar. Wiki says that a typical fireplace has an efficiency of around 25%. But it should be noted that a fireplace vents freely. But we always see guys state that the smoke coming from the towers is indicative of an oxygen starved, cool fire. I agree that it wasn't fully vented, but there's lotsa grey areas there, to be sure. So that's why I went along with the OP that bsbray quoted about comparing it to woodstoves, since woodstoves aren't fully vented either. They actually, to me, mimic the conditions in the towers fairly well. SOME ventilation, but not fully vented. And the heat would also be somewhat contained inside the "box" formed by the multiple floors.

So if you want to make the argument that the fires were fully vented and less efficient - a bunch of the " a smoky fire means a cool fire" guys might take issue with you.

You can't have it both ways.

I have started a new topic for these discussions here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I figured it was probably prudent to do so. I am still an ATS newbie though so if it was inappropriate I apologise!

Originally posted by exponent
I have started a new topic for these discussions here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I figured it was probably prudent to do so. I am still an ATS newbie though so if it was inappropriate I apologise!

Not inappropriate at all. It's better to start a new thread than derail an existing one. Thanks.

Seymour:

I actually was thinking about the same things you commented on while I was showering this morning. I haven't had time to look further but I will.

Let's move our discussion to the appropriate thread though.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Griff]

well it appears the government is willing to sell me the models in which they used...
I replied stating I would go up to 100 dollars for their efforts... I'm not even sure how much this model is gonna cost... they havent sent me an estimate yet... so guys I'm willing to fork up the first 100 anyone else wanting to fork over more tax money... just U2U me,
I would like to say it is for a good cause, but all we are getting is what they coined "RAW DATA" ha ha ... that could mean any thing....

Originally posted by BornPatriot
well it appears the government is willing to sell me the models in which they used...
I replied stating I would go up to 100 dollars for their efforts... I'm not even sure how much this model is gonna cost... they havent sent me an estimate yet... so guys I'm willing to fork up the first 100 anyone else wanting to fork over more tax money... just U2U me,
I would like to say it is for a good cause, but all we are getting is what they coined "RAW DATA" ha ha ... that could mean any thing....

I commend your efforts. But, as you must realize, their raw data isn't going to do much unless we have the right program to run them etc. But, for what it's worth, I'd be willing to chip in just to have this information made available to those who can analyse it. Let me know.

well we are in luck - cuz A&E911 says get the estimate... so, I guess they really do want it.. well, this endevour keeps getting rescued and revitalized... what twice now... interesting... roller coaster... for a thread.

you know if this was jolly ole england -- the kings guards would have us in the tower of london, doing all kinds of stuff to make us feel good. Thank God we are Americans. if we cant live the truth then no one can.

No I have not abandoned this thread. just waiting on NIST and their Estimate. A&E911 will make the call if they want it. It appears I owe the Govt some money on top for just asking... ??? I dont know. I got the first haundred - you guys are going to have to come the rest...

Originally posted by BornPatriot
No I have not abandoned this thread. just waiting on NIST and their Estimate. A&E911 will make the call if they want it. It appears I owe the Govt some money on top for just asking... ??? I dont know. I got the first haundred - you guys are going to have to come the rest...

How much are we talking here just to ask for it? Let us know because if i have some extra money, I'll gladly chip in.

well I dont know got a letter saying they are forming an estimate and that I currently owe two hours for search or something like that.
all we can do is wait - I guess..