|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2006 5:10:21 GMT -4
Hope your bf manages to keep his head down at all the right times. Me, too, most fervently. The good news is that, despite a call-up length of 500-plus days, he's apparently only going to be over there for something close to 9 months, so that's some relief.
|
|
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 Aug 28, 2006 11:22:22 GMT -4
Again, I want to emphasize that the physical models built and tested all failed to substantiate the "fire and impact damage" theory of collapse for the three buildings. Scientific method demands that a theory must be tested for reproducibility and repeatability. None of the models constructed to test the fire/damage collapse theory managed to support (sorry for the pun) that theory in multiple tests. And again I ask - is that not a very important finding? Please elaborate and provide citations.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 29, 2006 23:48:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Aug 30, 2006 0:05:52 GMT -4
Did you read as far as the second slide? The tests were to establish baseline performance of the wtc floor designs, not to replicate the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 30, 2006 2:59:31 GMT -4
Did you read as far as the second slide?
He seems to have been doing his usual trick of deliberately misinterupting the data to make it appear to say what he wants it too, all while ignoring what it really says. Not only were the tests to replicate a scaled version of the effect of fire on undamaged trusses, but ones that still had their fire-retardant as well. Even so they discovered that the trusses would have seriously deformed within a period of 45 to 120 mins, even with their fire-retardant intact. The Plane and Fires theory states that the fire-retardant was lost due to the impact and explosions of the plane's fuel tanks, so they can be expected to fail faster than the idealised versions that NIST tested to get a normal response. (The WTC trusses were bigger too which may have had an added effect.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 30, 2006 3:18:59 GMT -4
I's note that looking at the table on page 25 shows the following.
The restrainted 35" span with the 3/4" fire resistance and the 17" span with the 1/2" fire resistance both had their tests terminated because they were art the point of imminent collapse, at 116 and 120 mins respectively. The other two tests were both terminated because the vertical displacment become too much to measure accurately.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Aug 30, 2006 10:08:59 GMT -4
So the tests were terminated after 2 hours because they didnt collapse? hhm!
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 30, 2006 12:57:31 GMT -4
and then this:::(bolds mine)
,,,, and that's WITH the insulation intact
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 30, 2006 22:45:48 GMT -4
Did you read as far as the second slide? The tests were to establish baseline performance of the wtc floor designs, not to replicate the collapse. Yes, I read the entire report. But you obviously didn't read past the first of three purposes listed for the tests, which also included... To differentiate the factors that most influenced the collapse of the WTC towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
To study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative structural and fireproofing system. So they wanted to identify what factors "..most influenced the collapse of the WTC towers.." for normal building considerations and for those factors which were unique to the WTC towers. They built models that replicated the floor and truss assemblies that existed in the towers, and set them on fire in hopes of identifying the failure initiation point(s) that (according to the official theory) caused them to eventually collapse. If that isn't an atempt to replicate the collapses, then exactly what would you call it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 30, 2006 22:47:27 GMT -4
So the tests were terminated after 2 hours because they didnt collapse? hhm! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 30, 2006 22:50:35 GMT -4
Turbonium: The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this?
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Aug 31, 2006 10:29:16 GMT -4
Did you read as far as the second slide? The tests were to establish baseline performance of the wtc floor designs, not to replicate the collapse. Yes, I read the entire report. But you obviously didn't read past the first of three purposes listed for the tests, which also included... To differentiate the factors that most influenced the collapse of the WTC towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
To study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative structural and fireproofing system. So they wanted to identify what factors "..most influenced the collapse of the WTC towers.." for normal building considerations and for those factors which were unique to the WTC towers. They built models that replicated the floor and truss assemblies that existed in the towers, and set them on fire in hopes of identifying the failure initiation point(s) that (according to the official theory) caused them to eventually collapse. If that isn't an atempt to replicate the collapses, then exactly what would you call it? It does NOT say that they were trying to replicate the collapse, in fact it says the opposite, they stopped the tests before they were allowed to collapse. It says they were investigating factors that led to the collapse. Specifically, they were testing the trusses themselves and the fireproofing that was on them, to determine how much they 'sag' under the weight of the concrete flooring in a fire. They stopped the tests when they approached the point of collapse because they weren't testing the failure modes of the connections at the ends of the trusses, and by that point the trusses had exceeded the vertical displacement that could be accurately measured by their setup. Allowing them to collapse would have done nothing but make a mess.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 31, 2006 12:07:05 GMT -4
They built models that replicated the floor and truss assemblies that existed in the towers, and set them on fire in hopes of identifying the failure initiation point(s) that (according to the official theory) caused them to eventually collapse. If that isn't an atempt to replicate the collapses, then exactly what would you call it?
A good technique of inquiry by knowledgeable investigators?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 31, 2006 13:28:18 GMT -4
Test to destruction has its uses but it also has drawbacks.
In a test such as this letting it run right through collapse would not allow investigators to know , in inspecting the ruins after it cools, what damage was caused by the heat and what was the damage done by the collapsing structure itself.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Aug 31, 2006 22:31:39 GMT -4
|
|