|
Post by sts60 on Apr 13, 2007 8:51:38 GMT -4
Just about everybody's angry these days.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 13, 2007 19:10:00 GMT -4
;D Ok I'll pay that. There was a time I could watch the nightly news or current affairs shows and just laugh, I lost my sense of humor towards them during the war on/of terror coverage. Now I probably do tend to get angry at the giant. Then get angry about the right things--by going along with these stupid, ignorant conspiracies, you're wasting energy that could be used to fight real problems. I'm not claiming there are disinfo agents behind it, because that's frankly a stupid idea, but when you're bending over backwards defending people who go on and on about obviously untrue things ("fire doesn't melt steel"; "this big chunk of obviously concrete is in fact melted steel"; "the government is killing conspiracy theorists except for the ones everyone knows about"), you're not helping anyone. If you don't like how the government is operating, don't waste time with bogus science like conspiracy theories. Go out and try to make a change. Figuring out a way to bring my boyfriend (and all the other troops) home would be a good start, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 13, 2007 22:41:24 GMT -4
You probably miss my other post previous to that reply. The tests were done with.75 inch of SFRM which represent the condition which the floor support system assembly was originally designed. The upgraded insulation was equivalent to a uniform thickness of 2.2 inch which represent the existing condition of fireproofing thickness. So the time of response before the sagging occur with 2.2 inch of fireproofing insulation must be more greater than NIST results.
It's wrong. Firstly intial fireproofing was 05 inches or more, an average of 0.75, not 0.75 everywhere. The upgraded Fireproofing was also only 1.5 inches, not 2.2. It seems that the person who you have gotten the information from has taken the intial average of 0.75 inches and then just added the upgraded level, 1.5 inches, to it and assumed that the new level was 2.2 inches. It wasn't, it was upgraded to 1.5 from the 0.75, so they added betwwen another 0.5 to 1 inch. (well actually they had to remove the first lot and apply the new stuff at 1.5 inches.)
Second problem is that it wasn't completed. The fireproofing was done at the same time as a floor become vacent and allowed for remodelling, reconstruction or renovation. In 2000, a year after starting, a construction audit was done and only that only 30 floors in both of the towers had been finished, the evidence is that on 9/11 the impact points still only had the on average 0.75 inch fireproofing, not the upgraded 1.5 inch.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 14, 2007 2:20:58 GMT -4
Second problem is that it wasn't completed. The fireproofing was done at the same time as a floor become vacent and allowed for remodelling, reconstruction or renovation. In 2000, a year after starting, a construction audit was done and only that only 30 floors in both of the towers had been finished, Which floors it was...is it floors 1 to 30 or at other levels? In 2000, a year after starting,So the fireproofing upgrade program started only in 1999 are you sure? The decision to upgrade was made in the 1990's.There is no mention about the year 1999 in particular.What is your source? see NIST report Tests of floor truss components and subsystem the evidence is that on 9/11 the impact points still only had the on average 0.75 inch fireproofing, not the upgraded 1.5 inch. On what is based that evidence? Note Ignore that question if no upgrade of the fireproofing on the floors system assembly was made at the damage and fires aera.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 14, 2007 5:25:38 GMT -4
Which floors it was...is it floors 1 to 30 or at other levels? It's unlikely to have been in order if they were replaced when space was vacant, don't you think? 1999 is in the '90s! Besides, bureaucracy is a wonderful thing--even if the decision were made substantially earlier, I wouldn't at all surprised at it taking even as much as five years to actually go about implementing it. I would assume discussions began after the initial bombing--it does rather make sense--but since I'm not making any claims here, it's not as bad that I haven't researched it. You, on the other hand, are claiming to know more than the professionals who have researched the collapses. If I were you, I'd make sure I knew what I was talking about in advance. Seriously, though, isn't this the sort of thing you should know before claiming anything about the physical condition of the building? Before I would claim that anything was physically impossible based on the known conditions, I would try to, you know, know what the conditions were.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 14, 2007 15:28:13 GMT -4
Which floors it was...is it floors 1 to 30 or at other levels? It's unlikely to have been in order if they were replaced when space was vacant, don't you think? That is exactly the meaning of my question if you read "or at another levels"Because I think logically the upgrade program must start at the upper levels first. 1999 is in the '90s! Besides, bureaucracy is a wonderful thing--even if the decision were made substantially earlier, I wouldn't at all surprised at it taking even as much as five years to actually go about implementing it. I would assume discussions began after the initial bombing--it does rather make sense--but since I'm not making any claims here, it's not as bad that I haven't researched it. You, on the other hand, are claiming to know more than the professionals who have researched the collapses. If I were you, I'd make sure I knew what I was talking about in advance. I asked PhantomWolf where he find the reference about the year 1999.Are you PhantomWolf? -Gillian- (?) Seriously, though, isn't this the sort of thing you should know before claiming anything about the physical condition of the building? Before I would claim that anything was physically impossible based on the known conditions, I would try to, you know, know what the conditions were. Gillian if you want to learn something about what we are talking about, Start here. www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdfedited for spelling
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 14, 2007 15:42:45 GMT -4
Second problem is that it wasn't completed. The fireproofing was done at the same time as a floor become vacent and allowed for remodelling, reconstruction or renovation. In 2000, a year after starting, a construction audit was done and only that only 30 floors in both of the towers had been finished, the evidence is that on 9/11 the impact points still only had the on average 0.75 inch fireproofing, not the upgraded 1.5 inch. Well in fact the floors at the impact levels were upgraded to 1,5 inch and more of fireproofing protection. And you can find also where the 2.2 inch figure came.It came from NIST 256 individual measurements of an overall average thichness 2,5 inch with a standard variation of 0.6 inch.So the upgrade was more than 1.5 inch www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdfsee section 2.3
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 14, 2007 23:05:12 GMT -4
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring things. I got the info from an early report by NIST, it seems they got better data after that report. I've had to redownload the section on the passive fireproofing and am re-going through it, so since it's about 300 pages it'll take me some time. Things I have noted. According to the PA, the only floor in the impact area on WTC 2 that had been upgraded was 78, while in WTC 1 all the impact floors had. However I'd also note that by their own mesurements, much of floor 93 was still at about 1.8 inches. (all figures are in Table 4-2.) The figure of 2.2 does come from NIST, based on what the PA numbers were, so it depends on how representative they were as they are noted as being inconsistant with the estimations from photos. I'm only about 100 pages and then I have to redownload the fire tests (I can't find the reports I had mutter and downloading 7-9 meg files on dialup is a pain) and get back to you. Oh, and somthing else, going to the actual NIST documents is better than reading a 911journal commentarty of the documents
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 14, 2007 23:26:51 GMT -4
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring things. I got the info from an early report by NIST, it seems they got better data after that report. I've had to redownload the section on the passive fireproofing and am re-going through it, so since it's about 300 pages it'll take me some time. Things I have noted. According to the PA, the only floor in the impact area on WTC 2 that had been upgraded was 78, while in WTC 1 all the impact floors had. However I'd also note that by their own mesurements, much of floor 93 was still at about 1.8 inches. (all figures are in Table 4-2.) much of floor 93 was still at about 1.8 inches.Which is more than the double of the 0.75 fireproofing thickness NIST used for his tests. The figure of 2.2 does come from NIST, based on what the PA numbers were, so it depends on how representative they were as they are noted as being inconsistant with the estimations from photos. I'm only about 100 pages and then I have to redownload the fire tests (I can't find the reports I had mutter and downloading 7-9 meg files on dialup is a pain) and get back to you. No problem. I will let you the time to study the documents. Oh, and somthing else, going to the actual NIST documents is better than reading a 911journal commentarty of the documents Well the 911 journal seem to keep the record straight as well with full of references (NCSTAR) to the NIST documents for all to see. www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdfNIST Executive summary link you have given in a earlier post wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 15, 2007 5:19:35 GMT -4
Saying that they are wrong because they don't support FEMA's report is just silly. That isn't what I said. The evidence showed however, that unlike FEMA's conclusions, the floor connectors didn't fail prior to the collapse, but after, thus FEMA was wrong. And that wasn't my point. NIST had better resources, more time and had access to more evidence because more images and video of the event had become available.. NIST then proceeded to completely ignore the solid evidence which proved that the central core - topped by the transmission tower - began to collapse first. Before the perimeter. That is the evidence FEMA did mention. NIST didn't disprove it, they simply ignored it. And as I said, they had to ignore it - because it destroys their collapse initiation theory.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 15, 2007 11:21:51 GMT -4
I don't really feel like wasting my time digging up the reference for you. NIST didn't ignore the evidence. They acknowledged that depending on which side the tower was filmed from in some clips it looks like the antenna dropped before the perimeter columns.
How do you explain the bowing of the perimeter columns on one side each of both towers in the minutes proceeding collapse?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 21, 2007 6:10:23 GMT -4
I don't really feel like wasting my time digging up the reference for you. NIST didn't ignore the evidence. They acknowledged that depending on which side the tower was filmed from in some clips it looks like the antenna dropped before the perimeter columns. How do you explain the bowing of the perimeter columns on one side each of both towers in the minutes proceeding collapse? Even if inward bowing did occur (which I highly doubt), the evidence clearly shows that the collapse initated at the core. NIST did ignore (or if you prefer, dismissed) this evidence, and then tried to make their case based on a couple of photos, claiming it shows inward bowing of perimeter columns. The facts of this matter are not debatable. Numerous videos show that the transmission tower begins to collapse first.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 21, 2007 14:04:28 GMT -4
Even if inward bowing did occur (which I highly doubt), the evidence clearly shows that the collapse initated at the core. NIST did ignore (or if you prefer, dismissed) this evidence, and then tried to make their case based on a couple of photos, claiming it shows inward bowing of perimeter columns. No several photos in the NIST report show bowing as does the NYPD aviation unit video and a video shot from near Trinity Church. I'll try and provide link tomorrow. Perhaps you provide links to those "numerous videos"
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 21, 2007 21:54:28 GMT -4
Even if inward bowing did occur (which I highly doubt), the evidence clearly shows that the collapse initated at the core.
NIST did ignore (or if you prefer, dismissed) this evidence, and then tried to make their case based on a couple of photos, claiming it shows inward bowing of perimeter columns. [emphasis original] video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=wtcThe facts of this matter are not debatable. Numerous videos show that the transmission tower begins to collapse first. You're assuming that the collapse initiation would be visible on all four faces simultaneously. If the collapse began on a side not visible to the camera, the antenna would begin to move before collapse was visible on the sides facing the camera, as the roof tilted due to the failure of the supports on one side. Also, any vibrations or movement of the roof would appear exaggerated due to the antenna's length and (relatively) weak bracing. Here is a video of the collapse of the north tower. Please explain how the video shows any evidence that the collapse initiated in the core.. Congratulations, turbonium. As usual, your credibility meter is reading off-scale low.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 22, 2007 20:04:50 GMT -4
Also notice what is missing from the Trinity Church video's audio too (though in a modified version that is floating about ,someone attempted to put a few in for fun.)
eta: Yes I'm still coming back to the fireproofing. Very busy at work and I'm only about 2/3 through the Fireproofing report and haven't restarted the firetesting.
One thing I will note here, is that the computer modelling was done with both the 0.75 and 2.5 inch foams.
What they found was that the foam worked well to do it's job, unless there was some missing, and then the metal heated at the missing spot and transfered that heat along its structure.
More later.
|
|