Why did NIST decide WTC steel could not conduct heat?
by Loop Garou
This article is based on a comment LG posted on another 9/11 thread. We welcome replies and rebuttals, please send them to [email protected]”, marked “9/11”
The National Institute of Standards & technology (NIST) was engaged by Congress and by FEMA, shortly after the events of 9/11, to produce a report on the destruction of the three WTC towers.
While it did pursue some initial real-world experimentation (which should be discussed in turn), NIST built its conclusions on the collapse primarily on the basis of computer models.
It follows their conclusions can only be as good as those models.
Let me explain first how a predictive computer model works. It’s virtual reality. If you are building a model to predict anything from the stock market to building collapses you are essentially telling a computer a set of rules that enable it to construct a real-world simulation of your money markets or your building. The most important thing to understand is the result you get is only as reliable as the data you input, because computers are quick but not smart.
If you input garbage, you will output garbage. If you punch in wrong values a computer won’t realise they make no sense, it will just run its program with those values and produce a result that has no connection to the real world, and can even be downright ridiculous. There’s no fail-safe or common sense override. Punch the wrong data into your computer model and you will get “proof” cars can drive on water, or birds can fly through solid rock.
Any computer model of anything is only as good as the parameters fed into it.
NIST’s models can’t be assessed independently as a whole because NIST refuses to release any data about them. Their claimed reason for this is that releasing the docs might endanger national security.
However NIST did disclose some limited information about their parameters in the body of their reports, most perturbing and inexplicable of which is their acknowledgement they assigned all the steel in their WTC model a thermal conductivity of zero, or close to zero.
To explain to a non-science-based readership what that means, just consider what you would expect to happen if you placed one end of a steel bar in a fire and kept hold of the other end. Would you expect:
A) the end you were holding to gradually heat up to the point you could not keep it in your hand?
B) the end you were holding to remain cool no matter how hot the end in the fire becomes?
Believe it or not, NIST chose the second option. Here it is in their own words:
“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
“The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
“Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
You don’t need to be a professional scientist to know this is bunkum and a total disregard of basic physics.
Why does this matter? It matters a LOT. Changing the assumed conductivity of steel from its actual figure to zero would allow the model to produce much higher temperatures in the steel directly exposed to fire than would be possible in reality. It’s like calculating the amount of water you could get into a sieve at any one time by assuming the sieve has no holes. The model will show the sieve can be filled to the brim, but that is just so much garbage with no real-world application.
Just so with the temperatures of the steel. NIST needed to produce a model that allowed cool office fires of around 800deg to somehow produce enough heat in localised areas to weaken and buckle steel girders and struts. If they’d allowed the steel to behave normally and wick the heat away along its length they simply could not achieve this aim. Only by turning the assumed thermal conductivity to zero (the equivalent of assuming the sieve has no holes) could they get their model to create enough heat to do the buckling and weakening.
This is a huge problem. In fact it could not be a bigger problem. This bogus assumption that steel has zero thermal conductivity not only renders the NIST report as a whole deeply suspect, it entirely nullifies even the flawed basis for its “collapse by fire” hypothesis.
This is why so many scientists are calling for another investigation. They aren’t saying the gumment did it, they aren’t claiming a conspiracy, they just see huge errors in the previous investigation and want more work to be done.
Bottom line is NIST punched in false data that totally invalidated their model. The zero thermal conductivity issue alone is sufficient grounds for a new investigation.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
The first paragraph: “The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
Is called lumped body analysis, can be valid – as long as the body is small enough in the dimension of the thermal gradient, the usual example is for cooling of lead shot. It simplifies the number of variables in the partial differential equations required for the model and thus reduces computing expense. I am not saying it is valid for this case but it may not be as alarming as the author of this piece makes out.
Sometimes we need to be careful what we latch on to.
I am surprised that so many people have been prepared to even engage in communication with, what is obviously, government troll. His comments (his or written for him by his handlers?) clearly show lack of basic understanding of science and total disregard for facts. He also suffers from superiority complex and therefore will never be able to admit that he is wrong, that would forever ruin his life and his ego. Denial is his only way to not see himself for what he really is.
Therefore, I believe that he is just a waste of breath and not worth spending any energy on.
By the way, his claim of “handful of experts” shows his ignorance, there are over 2500 architects and engineers joined by firefighter (explosions) and many others and that number is rapidly growing.
Jerome Fryer says: While hunting around to figure out what the present status of the ‘truther’ hypothese were (as there are still several, contradictory, versions), So? That’s the way science works. There ought to be contradictory hypotheses about an event that remains unproven. I have come across all of these misconceptions or examples of studied ignorance. I say “studied”, because you can put up video of smoke billowing from WTC 7 and get some assertion about dust being trapped in vortices at the back of the building. (As I did, with Norman providing the lunacy.) That has literally nothing to do with anything I have discussed. You’re straw-manning. This isn’t some sort of contest of opinions, Loop. Yes it is. Well, more precisely it’s a contest of hypotheses. NIST’s explanation is one hypothesis. It’s perfectly reasonable to have contesting hypotheses when proof is absent Occam’s Razzor kills every one of… Read more »
Jerome Fryer said: No citation for your “cool fire” claim. That makes you look like a liar, Loop. Or perhaps just a slightly over-the-top fantasist. You need a citation for the temp range of office fires? Holy hell, you really don’t know much about physical science do you? This gives you the temps of flame in various open and room fires: https://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html This is NIST’s own study of fire dynamics that gives some temps and also gives some info about heat conductivity that might help you understand the basic physics: https://www.nist.gov/%3Cfront%3E/fire-dynamics Here’s a basic google search for typical house fire temps https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=typical+temerature+of+room+fires&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=2ZrkV_O7Fa_A8gfQnZ6oCg#q=typical+house+fire+temperature This is not controversial and not hard. Office fires/house fires are relatively cool fires compared to those you’d find in a blast furnace for example. And before you get excited it’ important you remember a flame temp of 1000C will NOT produce a temp of 1000C in anything… Read more »
The page 20 thermal conductivity quote was NIST setting up a simulation before an experiment, hence no effect on the results of the WTC and 2 collapse.
The p. 52 quote was for modeling gas temperatures inside the office space, and so set a thermal boundary. Since the concrete slab topped the floor, hence forming the immediate thermal boundary, it’s thermal properties were used instead of the underlying metal.
No duplicity here. What a tempest in a teapot.
You’re saying NIST assumed the combustion gases would be polite enough to stay within those concrete office spaces, and not go wandering off through the burning structure and contact any steel?
LOL!
This is as good as your progressively collapsing girders propelling the first eight floors of WTC7 to the ground symmetrically at – greater than free fall??
Well, Loop, you see, some of the girders were rocket propelled . . . which, as it happens . . .
What do you think would happen if the super-heated air and gas / particle mixture produced by the combustion did make contact with part of the steel structure?
Do you believe that steel has some magical property that would draw all of the heat (or even a significant amount of heat) from the gases? Do you have a citation for this astounding new addition to materials science?
“LOL!” indeed.
Because I know that you will both read it and understand it, Jerome, and pretty much contradicts everything that b1c1jones glibly spouts, especially that part about the complete absence of “duplicity:”
The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
Kevin R. Ryan
September 10, 2008
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html
I have already seen that article. Long on accusations, short on facts.
Well, that’s certainly weird. I wonder how NIST knew how to accurately model a steel beam? Must have just made something up on the spot, I guess.
Or that would be my guess if I were as dull as Kevin Ryan.
Can you figure out this mystery, Norman?
Yes, indeed, an inscrutable mystery to me, Jerome. I can’t figure it out. Unfortunately, I don’t have your brains. Can you explain it to me?
Maybe you should go and have a look at what NIST does.
Here’s a recent improvement for something or other. See if you can decipher what it may be related to.
https://www.nist.gov/node/796081?pub_id=919466
Also read points 14 and 15 in this FAQ:
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
It’s not hard Jerome. You just make it seem hard. b1c1jones tries to explain NIST’s decision to assign zero conductivity to the steel in its thermal penetration model as being due to NIST’s belief that the concrete on the floor would prevent the gas from reaching the steel deck underneath it (I don’t know why he thinks NIST would do this, but this is his claim). My response is a sarcastic inquiry as to how he imagines the gas could be made to remain in contact solely with the concrete, given the nature of gas and the nature of fire. It’s irrelevant though, because the only way to make a realistic computer model is to program in real world parameters, and no one inputs unreal parameters in hopes of getting real results. Think about it – what kind of rational scientist would say “well, we figure the gas won’t contact… Read more »
You simply don’t understand basic things, here.
What do you think happens if the gas (super-heated air and combustion products) comes into contact with the steel structure? They put fire proofing material on the steel precisely because it is not a good thermal conductor, and a point source of heat can quickly weaken the steel. (Think about how they cut steel — do you ever see a large region around the locality of the cut heating up?)
If you start with incorrect assumptions you’ll end up with incorrect conclusions. Look into your assumptions.
Cut the B.S., Jerome. From the article “Steel Bar Joist Trusses And Steel C-Beams – Part 2,” posted a the website: “Fire House Expo.” “[One of four] factors [that] determine[s] the speed with which unprotected steel will fail during a fire: [. . .] the fire size.” “The size of the fire is the final factor that can affect steel failure. If a small-area fire comes in contact with a portion of a large steel beam, the steel will absorb heat and transfer it away from the flaming area to cooler parts of the structural element. A fire could burn for some time before it heats the entire steel beam to its failure temperature. On the other hand, a large-area fire in which flames involve much of the steel beam in a short time will heat the steel beam to its critical temperature more quickly. A “flash fire,” suddenly involving… Read more »
@Jerome Fryer So your new theory is the fireproofing fell off of parts of the steel members, which then heated up to structural collapse temps – because the fireproofing stopped the heat being wicked away along the internal structure of the member? You think fireproofing eliminates the intrinsic thermal conductivity of steel? Hilarious! You realise NIST never makes this ridiculous claim you are making? Think about it – how in the hell would fireproofing applied to the surface of a steel member prevent heat being conducted within the body of the steel? once the fireproofing was breeched? I’m sorry I don’t know what your point is about cutting steel. Yes, if you heat up one part of a steel member the rest of the member will also heat up. This is Physics 101, Jerome, not rocket science. Now, for the love of humanity stop telling other people they “don’t understand”… Read more »
Loop Garou: Your ‘love of humanity’ is evidenced and succinctly expressed. That a ‘Jerome Frier’ persists only in shooting barbed arrows at the sanctity of true willing witness is perhaps a play on words. (The killing of St Jerome). However your lack of barbed response is a breath of fresh air and only more clearly illuminates both the nature of the points in discussion and the nature of the refusal to discuss or engage with them. You see someone who doubts and seeks to overcome doubt – but if the purpose is to effect what has in fact been effected, then he has no doubt but to have succeeded – for the majority of visitors to the site will not follow a long thread of ‘argument’ that is not in fact what it seems – being a provocation in the form of an argument. But it looks like an argument… Read more »
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have gone through all this, chapter and verse…
Wanna know what these experts on building design and construction concluded…?
http://www.ae911truth.org/
If you want to know why the handful of ‘experts’ that AE911T represent are incorrect about their assertions:
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
If you were as motivated to actually investigate the years of investigations that these Architects and Engineers made – as you were to offer this Googled ‘response’ – I would have been happy to converse with you !
Motivated by cash, or a belief that I am a special snowflake that knows better than the vast majority of my peers?
Both?
You’ve been looking into this a while now. Have you not noticed the striking absence of genuine scientific rebuttal in any of these places you link to? Do you not see it’s all ad hom and sneering and general claims of fraud or stupidity which never get detailed and rarely specifically rebut anything?
Sooner or later you are going to have to go away and do some quiet thinking about what this absence shows.
Here is the latest thread on the Hulsey modelling project:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311698
Explain why you believe that this type of discussion is inferior to the echo-chamber of tightly moderated group-think on the ‘truther’ sites. Maybe go to a site that supports something that you believe is nonsense, have a look at how they do their woo production, then compare.
I didn’t say anything about types of discussion. I said you must have noted the relative absence of coherent rebuttal. You were recently looking for an explanation of why NIST zeroed the thermal conductivity of steel, but you cant find one, even when you ask directly. Neither can I or anyone. Why? Why isn’t NIST or NIST’s supporters explicating this? What does this absence tell us? So, here’s some other things to try. Try to find an explanation of why NIST didn’t even bother to examine the more likely possibility of controlled demolition but instead went straight to the unprecedented idea that fire brought down high rise buildings for the first time in the history of construction. I predict you won’t get anyone to address this question. But try for yourself and see. Try to get anyone to tell you how a gravitational collapse can find the additional energy to… Read more »
I don’t need to ask those questions, Loop. While hunting around to figure out what the present status of the ‘truther’ hypothese were (as there are still several, contradictory, versions), I have come across all of these misconceptions or examples of studied ignorance. I say “studied”, because you can put up video of smoke billowing from WTC 7 and get some assertion about dust being trapped in vortices at the back of the building. (As I did, with Norman providing the lunacy.) This isn’t some sort of contest of opinions, Loop. Occam’s Razzor kills every one of the ‘conspiracy theories’ stone dead before they even manage to start making an argument. When you are making extraordinary (and massively complicated, and exceedingly unlikely, and totally unecesssary) claims then the burden is on you to back up those claims with extraordinary evidence. Not paint chips processed by an imbecile and a bunch… Read more »
I have followed this discussion for a couple of days now, and I suspect it will run and run. I admit that I am not qualified to contribute on the technical aspects, but I know a man who can. Watch this presentation on the collapse of WTC7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyitsI&feature=youtu.be In strict laymans terms “on a scale of 1 to 100, what is the likelihood of this building collapsing due to fire?” answer “ZERO.” As for NIST: Prof Hulsey had to respect professional boundaries – but when asked “if your student submitted this (NISTs’ analysis), would you flunk him?” answer “YES.” Thats plain enough for me! Please take up the tecnical aspects of this with Prof Hulsey over at Alaska Fairbanks (wtc7evaluation.org) Caveat: This is not peer reviewed yet, but it soon will be. Its an open source review, register and you can have input. If he has got it wrong, tell… Read more »
You know one man, eh?
The tobacco companies had hundreds of ‘men’ presenting their claims about smoking. The oil companies still have hundreds to contend that AGW isn’t proven.
What you have discovered is that AE911T can only scrape up a relatively small amount of money.
Science isn’t about consensus or majority rule. It’s about data. Back when every scientist agreed Creationism was a fact, that didn’t make evolution any less true.
Your reply is a weak straw man argument. You try to shift focus away from the content of his argument to the ‘one man’ bit. You’re weak dude, very weak.
Here is a fairly good, simple, explanation for the WTC towers collapse:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11457394#post11457394
I have suggested that off-Guardian try reaching out to the ISL forums to see if they can get a simple encapsulation of what the generally accepted explanations for the physics of the collapses involve. This is a good example of what you could be using, if you were interested in giving a non-‘truther’ explanation.
Jerome, most Off-Guardian readers have a basic grasp of Newtonian physics and see the NIST report for what it is. They also note the mainstream media censorship around the issue and the ever-present official narrative apologists in comments sections.
I believe that the US government screwed up hugely, and nobody was held to account.
I also believe that the ‘truther’ attempt to add crazy, unnecessary, and anti-Semitic, elements to the physical events are unhelpful in attaining that goal.
Who pays the ‘truther’ bills?
You say “I also believe that the ‘truther’ attempt to add crazy, unnecessary, and anti-Semitic elements to the physical events are unhelpful in attaining that goal.” Oh, really? So according to you, the ‘dancing Israelis’ who were filming the WTC collapse on 9-11, cheering and holding a bic lighter up to the burning towers and giving each other high-fives is ‘anti-semitism’? Did you ever read anything about Urban Moving Systems? The fact the NYPD arrested these Israelis and handed them over to the FBI? That they had the same box cutter knives the alleged hi-jackers had? That forensic testing of their clothing and the van they were driving had explosives residue all over them? Don’t know about you, but their explanation to the FBI that “we are not your problem,the Palestinians are” and “we were in NYC to record and document the event”, i.e. the WTC terror attacks sure makes… Read more »
We have invited contributions from all sides. May I suggest you invite someone on the forum to submit to us. Or why not submit something for ATL yourself?
Since you seem very sure neither Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Pained Scientist nor Loop Garou can understand the basic science you must be at least as qualified as them to offer a rebuttal. Maybe consider a piece about why NIST was correct to assume the WTC steel had no ability to conduct heat?
I am not qualified to simplify the event in a way that can be grasped by people unwilling to apprehend it — try finding someone willing to try, or who already has done so. The ISL forums are a good example for somewhere you could ask. I just got registered there, so I’ll see if anyone is interested. (But be warned that you might start to get people posting even more comments that will upset your ‘truther’ posters.) Nor is “Loop Garou”, and his source for the quote-mining in this article isn’t given. That you are happy to create an article from such is pretty appalling. Although the false impression given by the ‘Steve Spak’ video, and your accompanying editorial content, wins the prize so far. (It isn’t hard to find video and photos of WTC 7 that give the lie to that propaganda attempt. So why bother?) “Maybe consider… Read more »
A conversation on this thread yesterday:
MORIARTY’s LEFT SOCK:
“Are you claiming it proves :
(1) NIST did NOT set the thermal conductivity of the steel in their models to zero? Or…
(2) They DID but they were correct in doing so?”
YOU:
“2) They DID but they were correct in doing so.”
We are inviting you to submit an article based on this statement of yours that NIST did set the thermal conductivity of the steel in their model to zero and were correct to do so.
What does “not qualified to simplify the event” mean? if you understand the event how can you not be “qualified” to simplify it?
Come to that, why do you need to simplify it? You expect people to understand you BTL, so why not ATL?
I think you’re scared of being shredded Jerome. Maybe because you don’t really understand the science. Maybe because you do and you know it’s so much bollocks.
Being able to reduce something that is relatively complicated (the NIST report is quite large) down to something easily grasped by the layperson is usually difficult. Whether you understand it yourself or not isn’t predictive on your ability to explain it in simpler terms (without botching it). You also have to consider the intended audience… and, frankly, I despair at that… “I think you’re scared of being shredded Jerome. Maybe because you don’t really understand the science.” You’re entitled to your opinion, and to ignore restored context and any explanation of what I take from “the science” (as distinct from wild conjecture backed by assertions). And to pretend that the video and photos showing WTC 7 seriously on fire (for hours) isn’t what your lying eyes would communicate to you. And that some form of explosives that produced no expected sound levels and / or light emission was used. And…… Read more »
Far from ignoring the restored context, I gave an explication of how it makes the fact NIST were distorting physics even clearer than Loop Garou’s edited version.
I see you are still here Jerome, continuing to try to sell us your conviction that the ‘official’ collapse narrative is basically correct, in spite of abundant scientific opinion that it’s pure hokum.
Destruction of the building through controlled demolition is the only hypothesis which accounts for ALL of the features observed in the collapses of the twin towers and building 7. Repeat: controlled demolition accounts for ALL the features observed in the collapses.
Global building collapse caused by fire (the official NIST explanation) accounts for NONE of the observed collapse features. Repeat: demolition through fire accounts for NONE of the features observed in the collapses.
“in spite of abundant scientific opinion that it’s pure hokum.”
Citation?
Try this:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/215-news-media-events-5-of-6-nist-fraud-5.html
Hucksters tha want to sell you stuff claim scientists all liars.
Shocking.
“Being able to reduce something that is relatively complicated (the NIST report is quite large) down to something easily grasped by the layperson is usually difficult. Whether you understand it yourself or not isn’t predictive on your ability to explain it in simpler terms (without botching it). You also have to consider the intended audience… and, frankly, I despair at that…” I’m calling you out here on “false modesty,” Jerome. You can do this and you damn well know it. “Reduction” is your stock in trade if it isn’t your middle name. In addition, just look at the length and sheer profusion of your comments. All you have to do is go back through everything you’ve already thrown at us and cherry-pick what you think are your best and brightest moments and voilà, eh, you’d be done. Your piece would be a anthology of sorts, and you could claim copyright.… Read more »
Now all we need is someone to stop talking round the issue and explain how progressive failure leads to simultaneous and symmetrical collapse. And why the diagram in this link (which is just another sourceless apology for NIST) looks NOTHING LIKE the real collapse.
There’s a reason why NIST won’t engage with the actual physics of the collapse itself.
Jerome, do you realise by the way that setting the thermal conductivity of the steel to zero is the same as assuming the steel can’t conduct heat?
Perhaps you should prove the assertion about ‘symetrical collapse’. Explain why Fitterman Hall got severely damaged by WTC 7 falling on it, for example, and why that still fits in with ‘symetrical’.
Perhaps look at the construction of WTC 7, and the modelled cascade of failures within the internal structure (the east penthouse drops in a full seven seconds before the outer facade starts to come down). There are several variants of NIST’s model for the collapse, and some alternate models. None require explosives or other additional sources of damage to explain the collapse.
The symmetrical collapse of all three towers is visible on video. Ie they collapse symmetrically across an almost perfect horizontal axis.
The fact other buildings were damaged by falling debris is beside the point. You would get that in even a perfect textbook controlled demolition, given the height of the Twin Towers and the proximity of other buildings.
Bear in mind also the Twins didn’t just fall down they literally exploded, hurling powdered cement and massive steel girders hundreds of feet. Bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank, nearly 300 feet away.
“The symmetrical collapse of all three towers is visible on video.”
Yet, when I put up video clearly showing how the WTC 1 collapse was not symmetrical in the least (having hit WTC 7), the argument was that the lack of symmetry must prove explosives.
You lot really need to get your story straight.
The comment you are replying to explicitly tells you that damage to nearby buildings does not argue against progressive collapse “given the height of the Twin Towers and the proximity of other buildings” It’s pointed out in that comment that WTC1 and 2 exploded while collapsing, hurling debris over hundreds of feet.
You don’t make any effort at all to respond to these points, you just repeat the same claim you made previously.
What’s the point if you don’t deal with what you’re being told? Are you here posting non-stop to convince yourself and silence your own growing doubts?
WTC 1 didn’t “explode” at all. Asserting that they collapsed “symetrically”‘ but also clearly didn’t is a contradiction.
You people need to get your eyes tested, and learn how to think. (Hence my suggestion that a series of articles on critical thinking would be more useful than posting debunked garbage.)
If the speedy and energetic decomposition of material that results in multi-ton steel girders being hurled hundreds of feet and powdered concrete, gypsum, marble and much else being thrown blocks in every direction isn’t an explosion – what is it?
The mechanically assertive lack of human relationship in the form of repeated refusal to engage in a two way willingness indicates a ‘communication breakdown’ from the very first. However, once induced to invest in such a non relationship, one is to some degree entangled in trying to improve it – but all one does is sacrifice into an intent to feed off of one’s gift so as to devalue it. However the extension of worth means that you have it – and having extended it, the gift remains an instance of an alternative to a lovelessness that recognizes none in others and believe to gain worth for itself or its cause thereby. Blinded by science is of course using forms of scientific or rational discourse to other intent than the discovery or arrival at an appreciation of what is already true – or the understanding of something released from false… Read more »
And the modelled cascade failure doe NOT resemble the real-life physical collapse. Look at them side by side man.
Cite what model you’re looking at, and what video you’re comparing it to.
The NIST collapse model looks to be correct to me. What sources are you using?
The NIST collapse model shows visible crumpling and distortion of the exterior prior to collapse. No such visible crumpling and distortion is present in the videos of WTC7.
Show me your side-by-side video and NIST model.
Do the comparison yourself if you’re interested. NIST’s animation is available and so is video of WTC7, Or maybe OffGuardian could post them?
Quote: “if you were interested in giving a non-‘truther’ explanation”
You seem to have an obsession about “truthers”, whatever gruesome creatures they may be.
I am not interested in an “explanation” that is full of derogatory language and makes outrageous claims, like the ones you keep posting here. There are laws of physics that apply, even in the US, and any “explanation” that disregards those laws is of no use.
Well said
Here are the experts’ conclusions… http://www.ae911truth.org/
And here is a debunking website for the claims made by that handful of ‘experts’:
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
First thing we see is a hillbilly heating one end of a short, half-inch thick steel rod in a furnace to glowing red and bending it, to prove that an office fire on the 80th floor can soften 100.000 tons of structural steel in a skycraper and make it come down at near-free fall speed.
Really? That is your “debunking”? Can you have the hillbilly “prove” where he got all the energy for the collapse from?
Why do you think all of the structural steel needed to be softened? Are you under the impression that when they do use a controlled demolition to bring a building down, that requires all of the structural steel to be heated up?
I have no idea how you can manage to come up with such nonsense. Stop for a minute and think.
Honestly, who cares what this one guy thinks. There are countless documentaries on this site and all over the web by engineers and other professionals, architects etc questioning the official narrative and his rebuttal is “there is only one person”, or “citations?”. His head is buried in the sand. He is deliberately ignoring all of the research that has already been presented. He’s a quack.
Jerome, you invest a LOT of energy into dismissing everything but the official story, which I personally would require to be lobotomised before I could accept such utter nonsense…. So, the question arises…are you getting paid for your support of the official nonsensical story…? Seems to me like you have a lot invested in rubbishing everyone’s perspective if it does not align with yours.. Hmmmmm…..
You’re so unconvincing on this thread it is laughable. Never before 9/11 did sky scrapers made with massive steel support columns and concrete collapse from fires. Especially Bld 7, nothing ever hit it, and the video of it is plainly, obviously controlled demolition. Who am I going to believe, you are my lying eyes? You know the answer to that 😀
Najib Abboud has conducted an independent investigation into the WTC collapses (paid for out of an insurance dispute, by the looks of it).
https://www.stevens.edu/news/deans%E2%80%99-seminar-series-dr-najib-abboud
It will cost you real money to get the original presentations, though.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Najib_Abboud/publications
In any case, his conclusions agree with those of NIST.
Abboud didn’t do an independent investigation! How do you suppose he could do that even if he wanted to? The steel from the towers has all gone. NIST won’t release its model data. What would he be “investigating” exactly?
This from the “talk” this guy gave:
“In his talk, Dr. Abboud shared the results of the forensic engineering study that investigated the WTC collapses, explaining why the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did,”
What? They stood for around two hours! Is this guy suggesting a “more conventional” building would have just dropped straight down the minute a plane hit it like something out of a LoonyToons animation?
Additionally, Dr. Abboud discussed the series of analyses undertaken to quantify and study the response of and damage to each of the Twin Towers related to the multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event.”
Is this saying Abboud was being retained as an expert witness by one side of this dispute?
If the WTC towers didn’t have the hat trusses (installed to hold the antennas, not on the original plans), then they quite possibly would have collapsed pretty much immediately.
Or at least that is what seems to be the consensus. ‘Truther’ sources will, presumably, dispute that.
Yes, Abboud was retained to independently (can’t trust the gummint’, after all) assess whether the collapses were independent events or linked. To do this he had to prove that the aircraft and fire brought each down. (Nano-thermite and dancing Israelis excluded.)
Who retained hm? Silverstein or the insurers?
BTW, I’m not a conspiracy-theorist, and I think you’re mich more of an anti-gummint person than I am, judging by you other comments. Most scientists I know are on the fence about 9/11, because the science is equivocal and NIST’s behaviour is so bizarre. Many people support a new inquiry just to get to the bottom of what the hell has been going on with NIST and the 9/11 Commissions, not because we think the “gummint” did it.
One could ask why you think the “gummint” are Soros-controlled liars in every department except this one, where you trust them completely even when faced with clear evidence of duplicity.
There’s way more solid science to demonstrate NIST’s deceit or incompetence than for many of the “conspiracy” ideas of foreign policy you advocate.
“I think you’re mich more of an anti-gummint person than I am, judging by you other comment”
Possibly, but I’m not anti-reality as established through a scientific approach to testing it.
As to foreign policy, I go by history.
There is a six pages article on the collapse of the buildings on 9/11 entitled “15 Years Later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses” in the Europhysics News Magazine:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
They already put this article up on “off-Guardian.”
I have a real life and can not spend all my free time reading what is published here nor in the comments.I also don’t have time to waste with a Pentagon shill! Please, move away!— [no ad hom please -OffG ed]Then don’t waste your time posting ad-hominem attacks.
You’re welcome, by the way.
You are defending/promoting the official conspiracy theory, you are an official shill! This is a fact, period! Now, tell us what you think of the five dancing mossad agents who tried to incriminate the Palestinians of being responsible of the 9/11 when they were arrested, and maybe, maybe I will change my mind and start thinking that you are not a shill, but and hasbara terrorist!
You need to see a psychiatrist.– [no ad hom – OffG ed]Helpful suggestion, I would say.
Presumably the second tirade isn’t ad-hominem, in your assessment? “Pentagon shill”, bad; “Hasbara terrorist”, plausible assertion?
Let’s also look at how quote-mining is used to deceive the reader. Believe it or not, NIST chose the second option. Here it is in their own words: “The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20 “The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52 “Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52 Context for the partial quote from p 20: The steel used to construct the column and truss flanges was 0.64 cm (1/4 in.) thick. The density of the steel was assumed to be 7,860 kg/m^3; its specific heat 450 J/kg/K (NIST NCSTAR 1-3E). The… Read more »
How do you see the emphasised portions (or anything else in this document) changing the sense of the quote in the article? Are you claiming it proves :
(1) NIST did NOT set the thermal conductivity of the steel in their models to zero? Or…
(2) They DID but they were correct in doing so?
(2) They DID but they were correct in doing so.
The important part above is this:
You don’t seek to make a model more complex than required, especially when you have limited computational power and time to produce a report.
NIST got enormous criticism for not just producing a report immediately, but they are taking a proper, measured, scientific approach to the problem. They don’t merely invoke “controlled demolition” then rely on ignorance to propagate that assertion.
Well this is progress. You admit – finally – NIST did set the thermal conductivity of the steel in its models to zero. It’s good to get that cleared up as you kept flip-flopping between implying they didn’t do it and calling anyone who said so a liar, and implying they did do it but that was justified. But now we’re clear. You acknowledge NIST absolutely did set the TC of the steel in their models to zero or near zero, but that this was justified, because it would have made no difference to the results. In support of this you quote a part of the NIST report you allege was deliberately left out of this article because it shows NIST was quite correct in what it did. Here is the section, with the section omitted in the article in bold : “….Although the floor slab actually consisted of a… Read more »
“This bit is simply balderdash:”
You didn’t explain why.
NIST detail the models used and how they inter-relate. If you think that NIST botched something up then try to explain the where and why.
“cool office fires”
Ever been in an office fire? Temperatures of near 800 degrees C are “cool”?
Crackpot claim.
It’s only a crackpot claim if you don’t understand the language of physics. An 800deg fire is a cool fire, and certainly not one usually thought capable of weakening steel. Which is why iron stoves and steel barbecues don’t collapse every time they’re used.
NIST had to try and find a way to explain how these cool fires could possibly have impacted so heavily on the steel, hence the mickey mouse with the thermal conductivity.
Making up stuff just makes you appear to be a liar. Or do you have a citation for the definition of a “cool fire”, in physics?
Do you understand the difference between Farenheit and Celcius? Your stove is not going to have a setting for 800 degrees C.
What in sam’s hill are you talking about Jerome? The temp inside of a wood burning stove can get to around 1500F (800C) . The stove does not instantly break apart and collapse as a result. An office fire is a relatively cool fire. Sorry, chum, it just is. Burning furniture and fittings in normal atmosphere is not going to generate temps of more than around 500-900C , and probably a lot less. But a fire of 900C in contact with a steel girder WON’T produce a steel temp of 900C, because the steel will be wicking away the heat through thermal conductivity. This is why an office fire – even a relatively hot one – simply does not have the fuel or oxygen available to heat steel to weakening point. Which is why steel frame buildings have NEVER collapsed due to fire. Remember, NIST was trying to build a… Read more »
No citation for your “cool fire” claim.
That makes you look like a liar, Loop. Or perhaps just a slightly over-the-top fantasist.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: These links were provided by Loop Garou in a reply at the top of the page:
This gives you the temps of flame in various open and room fires:
https://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
This is NIST’s own study of fire dynamics that gives some temps and also gives some info about heat conductivity that might help you understand the basic physics:
https://www.nist.gov/%3Cfront%3E/fire-dynamics
Here’s a basic google search for typical house fire temps
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=typical+temerature+of+room+fires&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=2ZrkV_O7Fa_A8gfQnZ6oCg#q=typical+house+fire+temperature
They didn’t, so the headline is a lie. — [The NIST report clearly states in its own pages this is EXACTLY what it did (see ATL for the sourced quotations) – OffG ed.]
“off-Guardian: Because facts really should be sacred.”– [no content-free ad hom please – OffG ed.]But headlines? Meh. Why should they be factual?
(Are you sure that this isn’t just an exercise in plumping out a CV for getting a job in the mainstream media? I doubt The Graun would quite stoop to that level of misrepresentation in a headline). [no content-free ad hom please – OffG ed.]This is from the NIST report as quoted in the article:
“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
What does Jerome think the phrase “no thermal conductivity was used” means?
Addressed above.
Just answer the simple direct question – what does the phrase “no thermal conductivity was used” mean?
It means exactly what is stated. They did not include that as a parameter for the purposes of the model.
As I made clear in the post above.
You’re falling for the deliberately evasive and obscurantist language NIST is using to cover some of their larger gaffs. They absolutely did NOT turn the thermal conductivity of the steel down to zero to save computer power! If they wanted to exclude parameters to save computing power they would simply have done that – exclude the parameter. But they specifically included the parameter. They set it to zero which is a parameter. Don’t be bamboozled. Look, this is from the part of the report you posted as proof of “quote-mining” : “Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab, for the purposes of modeling the gas temperatures, the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete…..” Aren’t you curious about how setting the thermal conductivity of the steel to zero can make no difference to the temps… Read more »
“Aren’t you curious about how setting the thermal conductivity of the steel to zero can make no difference to the temps of the gas circulating? Do you not realise the steel would wick the heat away from the gas and therefore cool it – unless its conductivity was set to zero?”
Did you see the graphs of surface temperature? Notice the wiggly lines labelled “(Exp)” and those labelled “(FDS)”? If the wiggly lines are very close together, then FDS is fit for purpose. (You can whinge all you want about what you think the model should be: it works as NIST built it.)
No, it doesn’t, and no, they did not. Here is your headline:
“Why did NIST decide WTC steel could not conduct heat?”
They did no such thing, thus your headline is nonsense.
“Why did NIST omit thermal conductivity from (some parts of) their models?” would be accurate, and not misleading (to put it mildly).
Your choice of articles, how you frame them with your editorial additions, headlines, and ‘moderation’ of comments all make it extremely obvious that you are not interested in the ‘truther’ assertions being debunked.
They didn’t “omit” the thermal conductivity. They set it to zero. Zero is a quantity. It’s a parameter. This means the thermal properties of the steel were programmed in to the model and did affect the outcome. This is entirely different from omitting thermal properties. If you do that you have to omit ALL thermal properties. Not just some. If the model wasn’t concerned with thermal properties they simply would not have set any thermal properties at all, for anything. Read their own words. They don’t say “we omitted this calculation.” They don’t say “we were not concerned with the thermal properties of the steel because this model did not consider heat distribution.” You know why they don’t say that? because the model was concerned with thermal properties – the thermal properties of the “gas phase.” They modelled the potential heat present in the gases inside the combusting WTC 1… Read more »
“They didn’t “omit” the thermal conductivity. They set it to zero. Zero is a quantity. It’s a parameter. This means the thermal properties of the steel were programmed in to the model and did affect the outcome.”
Didn’t affect the outcome — as determined by comparing the model to the physical tests.
The NIST NCSTAR 1-5F document referred to is here: https://www.nist.gov/node/599776?pub_id=101420 While it did pursue some initial real-world experimentation (which should be discussed in turn), NIST built its conclusions on the collapse primarily on the basis of computer models. The initial “real-world experimentation” (not mentioned further in the article) is critical to understanding how the models were created and proven. This is a fairly complex document, but some important points concerning whether the models were fit for purpose can be extracted. Chapter 3 — Model Accuracy Assessment – Steady Fires … Simulations of the experiments with the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) were performed before testing began to guide the design of the compartment and also to provide a baseline set of “blind” predictions. (p. 19) 3.6 SUMMARY The purpose of the spray fire experiments and simulations was to quantify the uncertainty of FDS for a fire scenario in which the fire… Read more »
Are you saying NIST’s physical tests proves steel has a thermal conductivity of zero?
If not, why did they set the thermal conductivity of the steel in the models to zero?
Because the models worked adequately with those simplifications.
They did real-world tests, then worked on their models until they replicated the real-world. At that point, the models are fit for purpose.
Really, you should just download and look at these documents. Even if you have no scientific background at all, you should be able to see the thoroughness of the approach that was taken.
The software they were using, by the way, is commercial software designed for the purpose of checking designs for fire-resistance prior to building them. One goal of the NIST study was to find the reasons for failure (the design flaws), in order that this not happen again.
What does “the models worked adequately” mean to you? If you mean the model resulted in a fire-induced collapse then yes, of course it did, because NIST tweaked the parameters to achieve that result.
The point you seem incapable of understanding is that the only way they could tweak it enough was by defying known physical laws and turning the heat conductivity of steel down to zero.
You really should read the NIST document, because you are simply showing a complete failure to understand the model and how it was developed.
What do you think NIST should have been doing? They performed physical tests (see the document), took the measurements from those physical tests, then adjusted the models until they replicated those test results.
Again:
Note the part in italics.
If you can’t understand this, then there is nothing further that I can add.
“like the thermal conductivity”
(Didn’t show up above.)
“Changes in various other physical parameters, like the thermal conductivity, also did not significantly change the results. This was important because the initial and boundary conditions in the WTC simulations were far less certain than those of these experiments”
If NIST won’t release all of the data and methodology it used for modelling the result it got, how can anyone VERIFY that “Changes in various other physical parameters, like the thermal conductivity, also did not significantly change the results.”
Do you have the necessary information to verify, Jerome? Did you do the verification? Do you know of anyone who did? Because you talk as if you do. And if you don’t, shouldn’t you just be quiet? Oh, but you’ve already said you have nothing further to add. Now that’s a start, eh.
If you are rejecting the NIST report, then do so in an intellectually honest manner. Just say that you don’t believe them because you don’t like the conclusion.
You are entirely free to read through their report and critique it. Pointing to something they Included as a methodological note (to help with understanding their process) and misidentifying that as a ‘flaw’ suggests that you’re going to have some problems.
The intellectually honest thing to do, Jerome, is to offer ‘reasons’ why you don’t like NIST’s conclusion if you have more than an emotion to go on, eh. They want the world to believe that setting the heat conductivity of steel to nil doesn’t affect the output of their model. Unless you have the model in hand and all of the parameters that NIST used as inputs into their model, you have to take what they are saying in this particular respect on faith, eh. Is this, for you, an example of intellectual honesty, Jerome: I can’t verify what they are saying, but I should believe them because they are NIST, and so I do? Or shouldn’t it rather be, if one is being intellectually rigorous and honest with oneself: I can’t verify their claim because they won’t release their data and methodology in detail, and so I don’t know… Read more »
“They want the world to believe that setting the heat conductivity of steel to nil doesn’t affect the output of their model.” No, they don’t. They want anyone able to understand their documentation to be able to see how they approached calibrating the model to their physical test results, and noted simplifications that they later covered. Those parts, such as the section you have noted, but also this — “Changes in various other physical parameters, like the thermal conductivity, also did not significantly change the results.” — are useful to anyone reproducing the experiments. Rather than having a hopelessly complex model, you can try the simplifications and see if they agree with your own physical testing, then carry on (saving a lot of time and effort). If you did find a discrepancy, then you could go to NIST and ask them why your model has a discrepancy. If NIST didn’t… Read more »
I could not have said it better myself:
“Nobody disagrees with NIST who is not 1) already a committed ‘truther’, and 2) has demonstrated no understanding of the NIST documents (e.g. the source used for this article).”
Well, maybe a bit better but without the least distortion of the meaning of what you have written, Jerome:
“Who is not a committed truther AND has demonstrated no understanding of the NIST documdents (eg. the source used for this article), disagrees with NST.”
Finally we agree on something, Jerome.
LOL. Now you got me writing like you!
Correction:
“Who is not a committed truther AND has demonstrated no understanding of the NIST documdents (eg. the source used for this article), agrees with NST.”
[not “. . . disagrees with . . .”]
There, fixed it for me.
Finally we agree on something, Jerome.
I’m not entirely sure that I understand your response, Norman.
It appears that you are saying that anyone trusting the international system of standards laboratories, and the rigorous processes that keep this system working, is being foolish.
They should place their trust in cranks who can’t even read a document.
Would that be a reasonable summation of your argument?
Dear Jerome, I muffed up an opportunity to giggle a little at your expense but with you. You wrote, “Nobody disagrees with NIST who is not 1) already a committed ‘truther’, and 2) has demonstrated no understanding of the NIST documents (e.g. the source used for this article).” Lets break this down into the two categories of people who, according to your statement, tend to agree with NIST on the issue of 9/11: A) a person who “is not already a committed ‘truther'” AND B) a person who “has demonstrated no understanding of the NIST documents (e.g. the source used for this article)” The slip up has to do with category B), as you yourself have defined it, and I have emphasized the detail I wish to call to your attention. It seems as though on an unconscious level, at least, your “intellectual integrity” is alive and well. It’s okay,… Read more »
“Yes” would have sufficed, Norman.
No, Jerome.
Metal that doesn’t conduct heat is up there with the ground in Shanksville, PA liquefying and swallowing up 200,000 pounds of Flight 93.
It’s amazing, simply amazing the number of violations of the laws of science that occurred only on 9/11, like the NIST warping the term, ‘thermal expansion’ and applying their new science to WTC 7, also stating that their new science could only be used for WTC 7 and shouldn’t be considered when investigating other building collapses due to heat, if they ever find any.
If we’re to believe that jet fuel, which is a form of enhanced kerosene, could generate enough heat to warp the steel in the WTC Twins to the point of collapse, I’m surprised some federal agency didn’t announce a recall on all kerosene heaters used in homes.
In a post-truth society all that is required is to align within the assertions of perceived power, regardless their truth – because the end-justified means are given faith and allegiance in continuance of the existing paradigm of self, world and power, which operates a segregative and separating exclusion of ‘mind-control’. Those who hold that truth is something other than the power to set narratives of personal identity within conditioned patterns of survival, control and self-specialness are obliged to release their allegiances to a false power truly exposed as such. Expecting or demanding a rational process of communication from the fear-defended is a mistake – but willingness to communicate from and honesty of being is a correction of mistake. However, willingness cannot force another to listen – but can bring witness to such willingness as is present. Infiltration or corruption of ‘truth’ movements is evidenced in ‘justifying’ hate, anger and withdrawing… Read more »
the NIST scientists must be shown to be fools who are completely ignorant of the physical properties of construction materials, or in the alternative complicit in terrorism. Otherwise they would get away with falsifying a crucial report, one that is of utmost importance to national security (traitors in the White House and CIA)!
Let that which is not true be seen as not true. And let that which is criminal be tried and law applied accordingly. Framing in terms of showing people to be fools or terrorist accomplices is the overlay of a personal agenda that will be picked up on and used to justify denying such communication getting through. I am focusing more on what is operating our minds unseen – because what we take to be our mind is already ‘hacked’ thinking. But in simple terms be aware that most of us comply with the power that holds our sense of life and self hostage. The lack of dissent or any critical challenge after 9/11 was not total – but was not far from it. Was that foolish or complicit – or was it a sense of survival necessity that then subsided to a capacity to re-evaluate? Is not that how… Read more »
I think it is most likely that the NIST scientists are smart and are not fools, and one assumes they must, at some level, retain some shred of scientific integrity. NIST is not a truly independent body since it is a part of the US government system, which makes these NIST scientists non-independent employees of the government machine. God knows what they were threatened (or bribed?) with to cause them to churn out this hokum, but it must have been something pretty big.
Reblogged this on Taking Sides.
Well worded. Good points.