Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NIST's Representative Sample for investigation(all) -Forensic tests...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
zforce Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:33 PM
Original message
NIST's Representative Sample for investigation(all) -Forensic tests...
umm we mean...."representative/adequate steel sample in only determining the quality of steel".

P3 Mechanical Analysis..
Paint study

Paint condition used to map upper limits to

temperature exposure on 21 perimeter panels

�� Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped)

saw no temperature T > 250 C,

Findings Forensic assessment

Of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels, only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 C.

despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels



The NIST found themselves to be in quite a pickle after the above Metallurgical Results had attested to temps of less than 250c in Oct of 2004. These findings had explicitly contradicted their long held theory which stated the fires had heated the WTC members to temps of 550c and above thus causing the affected steel to lose half of its strentgh ultimately leading to failure (*Even if that were the case that wouldn't explain the collpase, for the steel was prorated, thus even if the steel had lost half its strength it would still be able to bear its load)

So what did the NIST do?

Magic.

They, with a slight of hand, had changed their "adequate steel sample" from being adequate for the investigation (whole), to it only being adequate in determining the quality of the steel (final report).

The NIST did this even though in June 2004, before the "Steel temperature results" the NIST had clearly stipulated..

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf

---------The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NISTs investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.---------


As you can clearly see above, the NIST clearly states, the collection of steel was adequate for the needs of the investigation (whole) - Chemical, Metallurgical,and Mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination.

Moreover, the NIST details exactly what the Metallurgical Investigation consists of in other papers describing their investigation..

http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/wtcplan.html

----------Collection and Analysis of Forensic Evidence: structural steel, material specimens and other forensic evidence to the extent they have been collected or are otherwise available; metallurgical and mechanical analysis of steel to evaluate quality and estimate maximum temperatures; analysis of fire and elevator control panels.-----------

------Hence, "The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"-------

Just in case more evidence is needed..

http://www.aws.org/conferences/abstracts/2004/papers/2A ...


----------NIST is implementing its technical plan to address these issues (see http://wtc.nist.gov /). A primary objective of the investigation is to determine why and how the towers collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. As part of this investigation, the Materials Reliability and Metallurgy Divisions in MSEL are studying more than 200 structural steel pieces from the WTC site. Progress in this study is outlined here..............

.......Task 3: Property data to support studies of structure performance and airplane impact modeling. Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design of the WTC towers. All grades have been characterized for room-temperature mechanical properties, and initial high-temperature test results are complete. Testing at high strain rate is underway to determine the effects of strain rate on the mechanical properties of the outer columns, the inner columns and the spandrels. Chemical composition and metallographic examinations have been completed on the majority of the steels. Creep, or time-temperature-dependent behavior of some steels will be studied after the high temperature properties are developed.........

Task 5: Metallographic analysis of steel to estimate temperature extremes. Microscopic, macroscopic and metallographic analyses are under way to determine the maximum temperature excursions seen by the steel. --------------


Hence as was stated before regarding task's 3 and 5...

---The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of all the investigation

So, as you can clearly see, the Metallurgical aspect of the investigation for which the steel was adequate, had clearly consisted in determining the quality of steel, and in determining the steel temperatures the steel was exposed to.

Last but not least, lets turn to the NAIL in the coffin.
The "Nail in the coffin" is evidence of the fact that the NIST had actually discussed changing their initial findings from the steel being adequate for the investigation to it being adequate to only part of the investigation (determining quality).

Note, the following discussion takes place on the very same day the results of the steel being less than 250c were to be presented - Oct 19th 2004.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm

------------C: As John Barsom said, the statement is not accurate. The validity of the model question from yesterday speaks to this issue. I do not believe that we have enough forensic evidence. It may be okay to establish steel quality. There was no effort by the Building Performance Study team to systematically look at the steel.

C: The use of the term adequate needs to be revisited. There is no core column test to support the hypothesis. The floors came down, the slabs were pulverized. This was unprecedented. Exterior columns and core remained. The floors group will attack this finding---------------



"The use of the term "adequate" needs to be revisted", Science? I don't think so...

In summary, the NIST had only focused on one, and only one hypothesis/theory throughout its entire investigation, and that one hypo/theory being the assumption that fires were the cause of the two buildings(Three buildings-WTC 7) collapsing.

Focusing on a such a theory(blinders was the sole reason the NIST had ignored the metallurgical analysis results of the WTC structural steel . Over and over again, the wtc steel had indicated temps of less than 250c, which inturn naturally indicated fires not being the cause of the collapses, yet the NIST kept on with their assumptions and computer generated simulations via their assumptions that the steel had attained temps of 550c, even though there was not one piece of metallurgical evidence in support thereof..

In comparison, the general public are really no different than the NIST, for they have also concluded before sifting through the evidence that fires were indeed the cause for the buildings collapsing.



PS...

See Nist Appendix D

Comparing the results from the two analyses, some discrepancies exist where the visual observations made by WJE were in opposition to that of the results of the paint mapping technique utilized by NIST. As most of the observations of sooting and paint damage made by WJE were corroborated by the fire exposure-time sequence maps, it may be that a degradation mechanism exists where the primer paint exposed to the pre-collapse fires was damaged (resulting in the visual patterns) without increasing the local temperature of the steel above 250 C.

Z: The above statement is explaining the discrepency with regard to what the WJE had observed (soot and paint damage) and what the NIST had mapped..In other words, the NIST had mapped an area that the WJE had observed to be damaged, as an area where there shouldn't of been steel temps of above 250c. Hence the nist goes onto explain that maybe there is a "degrading mechanism" that can damage the paint faster and keep the steel temps from increasing above 250c.

From there, we move onto another discrepency, and in all actuality, quite opposite of the preceding one...

Additional to the discrepancy between the visual observations of WJE and the paint mapping technique of NIST, there were seven panels where precollapse fires were observable, yet neither analysis technique indicated the exposure on the recovered panel. One example of this was from piece M-2 where images show fires/external flaming for over 16 continuous minutes on the 98th floor (Sec. 2.3.1).


Fires for 16 minutes on 7 panels, yet no evidence of exposure over 250c?

In all reality, just one panel of steel from the fire area should/could be representative of all the steel in the Fire Area, since all the steel was primarily affected in the same way by the fires, that is to say..Fires for almost the same amount of time(give or take a few mins (16 to 20 minutes-dwell times).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to our little forum, zforce.
Quite a whopper of a post there. Do you expect us to discuss it all at once or can we nitpick over time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zforce Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Take your time..
And thank you for the welcome. Hopefully we'll be able to progress and learn from one another and put to rest some of the doubts either of us may have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That would be nice.
Although experience has taught me that there are some things that remain contentious, even between reasonable people. I think it is an unfortunate consequence of the dazzling compexity of our world that this happens.

But let's not count our milk before it's spilled (or something).

Perhaps you could offer an explanation of the purpose of your post? Is it just to draw attention to the limitations of the NIST investigation, or are you bringing these various elements together to support a particular thesis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Imagine for a moment you are a NIST investigator
You have a wife, mortgage, a couple of kids - maybe one in college. You have been tasked to investigate the "structural failure and progressive collapse of the WTC." You may not contemplate explosives (planted by anyone) in your investigation, because if you do it will be far too disturbing to the general populace; it would encourage further acts of terror, seeing as how those guys managed to do it; you will lose your job and be unable to get another if you talk about it, because you will be labeled insane and unreliable.

What would you do, other than quit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Your theory relies on the assumption...
that our hypothetical NIST investigator would, without the constraints listed in your post, contemplate explosives as a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He might. He might not. I suppose it depends on the actual evidence
he (or she) found on the ground. I was merely trying to facilitate a little less demeaning/disdain for the hardworking government grunts at the NIST. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Hmmm. I don't know if these are the type...
of person who would think of such a thing, even if the evidence was a little fuzzy. "Thinking outside of the box" is probably no more common within the engineering community than within the population as a whole, and I think the controlled demolition theories are probably outside of the box. I find it more likely that, in order to bridge the gaps in both the physical evidence and in the investigative tools available, such individuals would make assumptions in line with the generally accepted theory of collapse (at least by their peers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I can accept that Though they did toss out much of FEMA's work
with good reason, I assume they would tend to "build-on" rather than reinventing the wheel. I haven't honestly read any of the newer reports, so I can't say what they said.

Nonetheless, (LIHOP MIHOP arguments aside - we're only talking terrorists here) I have to say that honestly if I were the government, and there were in fact bombs as well as planes, I would probably want to classify that information for the common good, not for any nefarious reasons, or even CYA. I would simply think that if our enemies realized for a moment we were that open all hell might break loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I think that might happen...
Our government has certainly hidden things in the past, with dire consequences (I hope there is no need for me to provide links, but if necessary I will).

But these take lots of work to hide, because the government (fortunately) is not monolithic. With an investigation by a civilian agency like the NIST into something that is arguably less vital to national security than, say, the atomic tests done during the cold war, I think the difficulty rises considerably because there is less incentive for the individuals involved to hide the truth. Most people aren't willing to rock the boat, but there's always a freethinker or two in a group that can't be bought or threatened. "Common good" might not mean the same thing to those individuals that it does to the people in power. I'm sure Nixon felt that it was in the "common good" for the Watergate scandal to be suppressed, but I think you would have to look hard to find an average person who felt the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Very convincing scenario, yes, the Bush Appointed NIST
team probably had little motivation to do a real investigation. Look what has happened to people just for talking about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks for slandering all the decent, hard-working people...
at the NIST. Why do you hate Americans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
12. Looks like you've done a nice job highlighting some changes
from the NIST review process. Was that your purpose?

This got me wondering though

Focusing on a such a theory(blinders was the sole reason the NIST had ignored the metallurgical analysis results of the WTC structural steel.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. It was posted recently. I'll see if I can find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 21st 2014, 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC