• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Dylan is in the Details

pomeroo

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
7,081
An update on what was once the Willie Rodriguez thread at the LC site:

I commented that NIST's comprehensive report on WTC 7 is due early this summer, and when it is released, fantasists will reject it without reading it. Dylan assured me that his side will "poke holes in it," as they did with the report on the collapses of the towers. I replied that nobody ever gets around to showing us any of those "holes." Dylan dug up the following factoid:

Dylan Avery wrote:

NIST claims that the floors sagged; their physical tests with UL floor models in 2004 showed 3 inches of sagging. UL's floor model tests in the 1970s also showed 3 inches of sagging.

NIST's computer simulation? 42 inches of floor sagging.

Not only that, but for the floors to sag and pull the columns in, in their computer they actually disconnect the floors and the columns in order for the floors to sag.

None of their computer simulations have been released to the public, eliminating any possibility of fact-checking. Faith-based investigation.

Your move, Ron.

------------------

Now, I've already pointed out that an entire thread has been devoted here to the release of NIST's computer simulations. The particular discrepancy Dylan alleges is a new one for me. Surely someone here (Mark? R. Mackey? Doc?) can shed some light.
 
The actual tests were with fully fireproofed (1/2" - 3/4") trusses and sagged up to 15".

The 3" he's referring to comes from a reduced span (17ft) test, NIST also tested steel with 20% damage to fireproofing and found it would reach critical temperature in as little as 20-30 mins iirc. I'll dig up the documents for you as I am now suspended.
 
e^n has answered it quite well.

Nutshell: Tests=fireproofed and on a smaller aparatus/assemby

Actual event: almost certainly entirely without fireproofing, and the assembly was much longer, and hence more prone to larger dgree of sag.

TAM:)
 
So what the hell is this avery? Did your thermate cause this??
aaa54.jpg


As Gravy would say

amark.jpg
 
Bobert said:
Does Dylan feel important by using this line?
Click to expand...

It probably plays well to his sycophantic pubescent public. Of course, it makes as much sense as a chicken laying its head on the chopping block and clucking "Your move, Farmer Brown."
 
Leaving aside the difference in fireproofing when it comes to the test and reality, and leaving aside the fact that we have photographic proof of floors sagging....think about what Dylan is claiming here.

He's saying that NIST, tasked with covering up the government's evil deed, cannot properly fake a test!
 
From NISTNCSTAR1-6 page lxxii

E.5.2 FIRE RESISTANCE TESTS
Four Standard Fire Tests (ASTM E 119) were conducted on floor assemblies constructed to duplicate, as
closely as practical, the floor system used in the WTC towers. Full scale tests with a 35 ft span, and
having ¾ in. thick SFRM were tested; one in the restrained test condition and the other in the unrestrained
test condition. Tests of half-scale specimens, which spanned approximately 17 ft, were conducted using
SFRM conditions simulating the “as specified” condition (0.5 in. thick) and the “as-applied” condition
(0.75 in. thick). The following findings are based on this series of four tests and a comparison of their
results.

Structural Performance

Finding 6: Test assemblies, representative of the WTC floor system, exposed to the Standard Fire Test
(ASTM E 119) conditions resulted in extensive spalling on the underside of the floor slab, thermal
damage to the bridging trusses, and buckling of compression diagonals and vertical struts of the main
trusses.

Finding 7: All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure.
The unrestrained test, which had two 0.875 in. bolts fastening the main truss to the truss seats, did not sag
sufficiently to bear on the bolts. In the three restrained tests, the main truss ends were welded to the truss
seats to provide the required restraint. The magnitude of the sagging observed in the tests was consistent
with that computed from finite element structural analyses. No evidence of knuckle failures was seen in
the tests.

Finding 8: All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two
hours without collapse.
Fire Resistance Ratings

Finding 9: The 1968 New York City (NYC) Building Code—the code that the WTC towers were
intended but not required to meet when they were built—required a 2 h fire rating for the floor system.

Finding 10: The restrained floor system obtained a fire resistance rating of 1.5 h while the unrestrained
floor system achieved a 2 h rating. This finding was unexpected since the unrestrained rating is typically
less than the restrained rating.

Finding 11: The test of the 17 ft specimen with as-applied SFRM did not produce the same rating as the
35 ft test specimen, giving 2 h and 1.5 h, respectively. In both cases, the rating was established on the
basis of temperatures of the unexposed surface (top of concrete slab) and not on the ability of the
specimen to support the load.

Finding 12: The 45 min rating for the standard 17 ft test with the specified 0.5 in. SFRM did not meet
the 2 h requirement of the 1968 NYC Building Code. This test had no SFRM on the bridging trusses nor
on the underside of the metal deck.

Finding 13: The 2 h rating for the standard 17 ft test with the as-applied average 0.75 in. SFRM met the
2 h requirement of the 1968 NYC Building Code. This test had half the SFRM thickness on the bridging
trusses (0.375 in.) and overspray on the underside of the metal deck.

Finding 14: The difference in test results for the two 17 ft specimens is due primarily to the concrete slab
performance (spalling and cracking) and the presence or lack of SFRM overspray on the metal deck and
not due to the SFRM thickness on the trusses. Differences in the degree of concrete spalling were
possibly due to differences in moisture content and the slab cracking.
Click to expand...

Just in case anyone like Dylan was interested...FIREPROOFED TESTS!!!!!

TAM:)
 
I thought I'd quote the relevant sections to completely see off this issue. Firstly:

Tests 5 and 6 exposed separate sets of one bar, one column, and two trusses that were insulated with SFRM to direct exposure of heat flux and temperatures from a fuel pan fire. In both tests, the thermal response of these components to flame proximity or immersion was similar. The SFRM surface began to heat immediately upon initiation of the fire and to cool immediately after the fire was extinguished. The protected steel responded more slowly, taking approximately 50 min with 1.91 cm (0.75 in.) of SFRM to reach 600 °C temperatures as compared to the 7 min when the steel was bare and subjected to similar 3 MW fires. Steel temperatures continued to rise approximately 25 °C to 50 °C for a 5 min to 10 min period after the fire was extinguished, before cooling began to take place by radiating heat through the
insulation back into the relatively cooler gases.
Click to expand...

Insulated and uninsulated steel components were exposed to compartment fires with varying heat release rates, fuel type, and duration. The surface temperature of bare steel trusses that were subject to impingement or proximity of flames from fires with a nominal 3 MW heat release rate reached 600 °C within 15 min. In comparison, the insulated steel trusses with SFRM protection (1.91 cm nominal thickness) reached 100 °C to 200 °C and the truss with 3.81 cm SFRM reached 50 °C to 100 °C after 15 min of exposure to a 3 MW heat release rate fire. After 50 min of exposure to a 3 MW nominal heat release rate, the trusses with SFRM protection (1.91 cm nominal thickness) reached 550 °C to 680 °C and the truss with 3.81 cm SFRM protection reached 415 °C.
Click to expand...

These were tests of fire interaction with structural steel and show that yes, SFRM helps but it doesn't stop steel heating up quite nastily. Below are the ASTM E119 truss tests:



So yes, fully fireproofed undamaged trusses should maintain their load for up to 2 hours, but unfireproofed and damaged fireproofing steel will quickly heat up
 
17 feet ones did...but didnt the 35 feet ones only last 1.5 hours?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
17 feet ones did...but didnt the 35 feet ones only last 1.5 hours?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The shortest period was 3/4 hour to reach 'critical temperature' I believe, the highest was 2 hours but the tests were not run for that long. The tests were only to confirm model accuracy lets remember, not to recreate conditions inside the towers.
 
This takes us back to a common misconception about fire resistance of unprotected steel, and a point which the truth lobby invariably run away from. If steel does not fail in fires, then why does every single building regulatory system in the West require AS A PRIORITY that steel structural members are fireproofed?

How big is this conspiracy? Steel manufacurers? Testing agencies? Building Control Officers? Fireproofing manufacturers? Architects? Engineers?

ETA: Perhaps they can tell us which bits of these test reports confirming that steel fails in fires they disagree with:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default.htm

Now of course the response is "show me a building which failed". And we do. But the reason that so few fail anyway is because they're all blinkin' well fireprotected. And massive explosions in these structures aren't all that common!
 
Last edited:
Incidentally Ron, if you are still replying to that thread, racerX wants details on thermal conductivity. NIST NCSTAR 1-5 deals explicitly with modelling radiative heat transfer and NCSTAR 1-5G gives lots more information.

Thermal conductivity is one of those things where a conspiracy theorist thought "AHA, I'm sure the other steel would have had an effect and I bet NIST didn't look at it because they're just government shills". Not saying this is definite but I would certainly suspect it from experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom