"It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging. It is
interesting that neither the NIST press release or report seem to concern themselves with the fire testing of
the floor deck and supporting truss assembly models, done under contract for them by Underwriters
Laboratories. Full scale models of the floor deck and supporting truss assemblies were fire tested, under
load, for two hours per ASTM E119. These tests did not produce a collapse and the 35 foot long trusses
sagged just 3 inches at midspan, not likely enough to buckle the perimeter wall columns. In fact, NIST
needed a non-evidence supported 40 inch floor truss deflection in their computer model to cause buckling
of the perimeter columns. The central core columns great mass gave them a large heat capacity and their
interconnection gave them the ability to transfer heat to other areas of the building. The lack of high
temperature evidence on the core columns is a testament to this point. These factors would have certainly
made them even less susceptible to weakening than the floor trusses.

The NIST press release does not mention either the floor assembly fire testing or the low percentage of
beams found to have experienced high temperatures in the microstructure testing. Both the press release
and the report’s conclusion attempt to point towards a theory of dislodged fireproofing materials as the
reason for the alleged interior steel weakening. It is a virtual certainty that NIST did floor assembly fire
testing without fireproofing, as a failure in that case would have proven the fire weakening hypothesis.9
As there is no mention of failures during these tests, it is obvious that they apparently did not produce
results which would back up the fire induced collapse theory. It is important to note that NIST has not
been able to cause physical models to fail with the fire induced collapse theory.

Tony Szamboti, ME (pdf)
www.journalof911studies.com

I think my head might explode if people don't stop using this. The trusses sagged by 3" after 60 minutes, 15" after 2 hours (I believe this is accurate) and were at max 35ft and fully fireproofed. The trusses NIST thinks sagged were 60ft and had fireproofing damage.

Misrepresenting NISTs studies like this is not the mark of a reputable journal. I'm going to have to change the topic of my paper to deal with the entire journal :(

NIST did do some tests with unfireproofed trusses but they never tested any trusses for 'fire induced collapse'. The whole misunderstanding of how NIST conducted these tests is wholly confusing, the report explains these tests in detail.

No no no. Stop wright here!!!

South tower totally turned to dust after less than hour. Less than hour... 3 inch... remember.

Bottom line: Nist have no evedence to back up their absurdity. Period.

And very good paper from Tony. I agree with most of it... and in fact it is like I have written it!!

Less than an hour for fully fireproofed 35 foot trusses.

They were calibration experiments, how is that so hard to understand? If they can accurately simulate the amount of sag in their model (which they did) then they can use said model to predict floor sagging.

Have you read the section of the NIST report where they illustrate the floor sagging they believe happened? Can you see sections that are fully fireproofed, 35ft in span and sagging more than 3" for no reason?

It is very simple. Nist have NO EVIDENCE to back up their absurd theory...and in fact it is hardly possible to call it theory...it is new standard for absurdity!!!

How about you just show where they predicted something which didn't happen instead of resorting to baseless claims?

I don't know how many times I have pointed this out over the years, but the NIST tests are highly misleading and are biased towards a predetermined conclusion.

"Poised to collapse" uh huh, I see.

taking a small sample of floor truss and heating it to examine the collapse of a 110 story building is not a test. it is a joke.

Hold on a minute, are you now trying to say that no structural analysis has any relevance? That every investigation by NIST, ASCE etc is completely baseless and has no factual content?

Eh ... I did not say that a fire turned 400 meter massive steel and concrete structure to dust in 12-14 sec. Nist did!... Eh.

Nist fail to back up their absurdity. They give no, zero, nada evidence. Obviously they CAN NOT!!!

Now, and you clearly can not understand that.

And it is your problem.

Not mine.

You're not accurate and what NIST "thinks" does not dictate reality.

I think my head will implode if ignorance continues to quote NIST assumptions.

Gaileo's Law of Falling Bodies:

Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared
1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7
9.2 seconds

Watch any video of the towers falling.


Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!

*Government “owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest

They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F

They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!

Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my a**!


To clear up any confusion NIST does "NOT" say the structural damage from the collision of the jets was enough to cause instability.

NIST says that the heat from the fires had significantly weakened the steel which led to the collapse of the WTC buildings.

But the problem is that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143


THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
--City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)

“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
--City in the Sky

The first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses! The floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those trusses....you could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations because there were other supports for that purpose.

note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.

Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations.

Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
--City in the Sky, p 133

The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled.

NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.

fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!

But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!

Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed.

Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft!

Ha! The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone I wont even go into weight I will just use the same math for speed and not add the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.

The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!

Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage.

The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!

Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii

Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing

New insulation is “patchy”? So the extra fireproofing that was put on was piss poor and the 2.5” in of fireproofing was “patchy”!

..."thermal protection was upgraded...in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)

“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)

“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)

Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of instantaneous large multi-floor fires

In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!

The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!

After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)

On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!

“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)

The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143

“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143

Source:
http://truthseeker.us/index5.html
http://WTCDemolition.com

e^n

"Hold on a minute, are you now trying to say that no structural analysis has any relevance? That every investigation by NIST, ASCE etc is completely baseless and has no factual content?"

bingo

i hope this whole debunking thing isn't your job. you suck at it.

Well that's amazing, you have essentially said that hundreds of millions of dollars of science is worthless, and to back this up you insult me. Congratulations.

Why are you two acting like you're not on the same side? :blink:

You insult the members of this site with this kind of BS and I think it's time for you to leave. <_<

i think you're confused. e^n is here to debunk. slowly and shamelessly bog the argument down into the usual abyss where newcomers think they cannot investigate . we are not on the same team. it surprises me to hear people talk as if there are teams. and don't worry i'll get banned soon. i believe in things that aren't allowede to be mentioned here.

How, exactly, would you propose they test the floor trusses?

There is maybe one question I want to ask a english native speaker. How would you understand this (about the steel temp in wtc):

"More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels...Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C."

I understand this maybe as they are talking about the steel it self... that is the heat of the steel. (steel reached temperatures) Ok... and then this:

"Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.
Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers."

So, I understand this maybe (I am not sure, because my bad english skill) as they are talking about air heat... or heat of the fire. Not the steal heat. (exposure to temperatures)

(Hope you understand what I am trying to ask here)

Source:
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

no i think they are talking about steel again . the word 'microstructure' probably means a section of the buildings structure.

The first set of tests was done on paint, essentially they looked for cracking which would indicate temperatures of 250C. Unfortunately, not too many columns had enough paint left, and as the paint would be removed above 250C it doesn't provide any estimate of how hot other columns may have been.

They also performed microstructure (IE microscopic analysis) tests on the steel and found no evidence of any reaching over 600C. I believe no core columns they tested showed significant heat damage but I think they only had 2 from impact floors. I think this is documented in the last report of NCSTAR1-3 so you might want to check that out.

Ok. Thank you.

The heat of the steel... in both cases.

But however... very shocking data. Outer and inner columns - about 250°

The deflection of a beam under uniform load can be defined as 5*w*l^4 / (384*E*I)

where
w = uniform load (kip/in)
l = length (in)
E = modulus of elasticity (ksi)
I = moment of intertia

Ff everything is the same between the two members except the length, the difference in deflection should be (60/35)^4 or a factor of 8.6. 3" deflection becomes 26". Length of a member in bending is exceptionally important.

wt?

"(60/35)^4 or a factor of 8.6. 3"

how can a number have 2 decimal positions?.

and what's with the greater than symbol?.

why does it have an inertia element but no temperature?

and why doesn't this formula include thickness of the beams?.

and structure?. a c beam and a h beam will have different strengths?

did you know that a h beam can double it's strength just by laying it on the correct side?.

is this bogus formula one for the floor truss models?. or steel in general?.

can you give references for it?.
or did you just make it up?

8.6. It is 8.6 followed by a period. It's not my fault it looks weird. The carrot (^) is an exponential riser, or length to the fourth power.

The formula can be derived from y(x)*EI = double integral of moment(x) dx It can also be found in the AISC manual of steel construction at the end of the "beam" tab if you happen to find one in a library (I'm assuming you don't own one). If you google "deflection of a beam" and hit the feel lucky button, you'll get This. Which appears to be the lecture notes of a professor at the University of Oregon. Scroll down to the bottom right and you'll see the formula again.

The moment of inertia is a component based upon the depth and the width of the member. In it's derived form, it is the sum of 1/12 b*h^3 + A*d^2 of the various parts. It comes out to in^4 and I forgot to put my units in my post above.

Where
b = width (in)
h = height (in)
A = cross-sectional area (in^2)
d = distance of the centroid of the individual part from the centroid of the assembly (in).

The modulus of elasticity is what varies with temperature. At room temperature, it is 29000ksi, as the temperature increasing, this goes down.

This is a basic engineering concept that's been around for centuries. The formula can be used for any type of material for bending members. You might want to research things on your own before you call them bogus. Is that not how Loose Change was started? Individual research?

Another NIST assumption:

1. In order to calculate the remaining fuel in WTC: North Tower after impact, NIST took into consideration the ONLY oxygen available for combustion was the oxygen inside a single floor multiplied by 4.

2. I'm not an expert, but do you see anything missing in this ignorant NIST assumption that arrived at 40-50% of the fuel from the aircraft remaining in the building?

3. Is this truly what taxpayer money paid for?

Can you tell me where they did that? From my understanding they modelled the fuel particles with SPH and they had a tendency to 'bounce', that is they were more likely to be expelled from the building than real fuel? If you can give me a report number + page number I'll address it though.

The plane was carrying about 9,100 gallons of fuel when it hit South tower.

NIST will estimate that less than 1,500 gallons were consumed in a fireball inside the tower and 910 to 2,275 gallons were consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Approximately 6,100 gallons therefore splashed onto the office furnishings and started fires on various floors.
www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a910noinferno

Holds no water. Do nist think I am stupit or what!!

Eh... what was the fireball outside the building made of ?? Nothing maybe!!

What?

Did you just ignore your own source or something?

Now, the only thing I have to do is understand how big the wtc is...then look at the fireball...then read this: "910 to 2,275 gallons were consumed in the fireballs outside the building"

I even doubt that 9,100 gallons of fuel can explaine this HUGE fireball!!