• 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.

Wizards Truss Me thread

A W Smith

Philosopher
A W Smith
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
7,032
Location
Central New Jersey
Wizard said:
Gravy misrepresented the NIST truss tests. They could only get them to warp by 3 inches but then they extrapolated that for the computer models.
Click to expand...


I don't recall Gravy mentioning the amount of deflection of bar joists in the second video. By Extrapolate what do you mean specifically?
 
i think its clear wizard expected NIST to construct full size/weight replicas of the WTC, slam planes into them, set them on fire, and at some point before they collapse venture inside to measure truss defelction
 
Gravy said:
Okay, I'm sorry, but that's worth two laughing dogs.

:dl:

:dl:
Click to expand...

Gravy why won't NIST release the computer simulations. They only got 3 inches of sagging on the model tests and extrapolated that to fit a collapse sequence on the computer model.
 
Wizard said:
Gravy why won't NIST release the computer simulations. They only got 3 inches of sagging on the model tests and extrapolated that to fit a collapse sequence on the computer model.
Click to expand...
if you saw the computer similations and they result in a collapse would you believe it anyway?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
if you saw the computer similations and they result in a collapse would you believe it anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes if the parameters matched anything that was physically possible.

They subjected the trusses to fire for 2 hours and produced just 3 inches of sag. That became 42 inches in the computer model. according to Ryan.
 
Wizard said:
Yes if the parameters matched anything that was physically possible.

They subjected the trusses to fire for 2 hours and produced just 3 inches of sag. That became 42 inches in the computer model. according to Ryan.
Click to expand...
the thing about the live tests are

1: they were not under structural load
2: the structure wasnt damaged in any way
3: it was done to determine if the WTC structure met building code

the computer model:

1: simulated full load
2: simulated aircraft damage
3: was to determine collapse mechanism


you (and ryan) are comparing apples to oranges
 
defaultdotxbe said:
the thing about the live tests are

1: they were not under structural load
2: the structure wasnt damaged in any way
3: it was done to determine if the WTC structure met building code

the computer model:

1: simulated full load
2: simulated aircraft damage
3: was to determine collapse mechanism


you (and ryan) are comparing apples to oranges
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that NISTs entire scenario depends on the fire proof being blown off which is pure conjecture.

UL also say that the steel wasn't tested by anyone. It must have been. Why would Kevin Ryan lie and say that his boss had said they tested the steel and lose his job?
 
Wizard said:
Lets not forget that NISTs entire scenario depends on the fire proof being blown off which is pure conjecture.

UL also say that the steel wasn't tested by anyone. It must have been. Why would Kevin Ryan lie and say that his boss had said they tested the steel and lose his job?
Click to expand...
i dont think UL said the steel wasnt tested by anyone, they said the steel wasnt certified by them, which is wasnt (although ryan said it was)
 
Wizard said:
Lets not forget that NISTs entire scenario depends on the fire proof being blown off which is pure conjecture.

UL also say that the steel wasn't tested by anyone. It must have been. Why would Kevin Ryan lie and say that his boss had said they tested the steel and lose his job?
Click to expand...

To cover his own butt?
 
Wizard said:
Lets not forget that NISTs entire scenario depends on the fire proof being blown off which is pure conjecture.
Click to expand...

Why is it pure conjecture?

Did you not familiarize yourself with the fireproofing type that was used on these support structures? The buildings were 30 years old, and its safe to assume that much of that fireproofing didn't last or opened holes along these supports during that time. And most fireproofing, as pictured in early images of the WTC towers are the type that would normally "flake" off if enough pressure was put to it

UL also say that the steel wasn't tested by anyone. It must have been. Why would Kevin Ryan lie and say that his boss had said they tested the steel and lose his job?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but when does a Water quality tester's opnion on structural steel matter?
 
Wizard said:
Lets not forget that NISTs entire scenario depends on the fire proof being blown off which is pure conjecture.
Click to expand...

Do you know why NIST say the fire proofing was blown off?



Wizard said:
UL also say that the steel wasn't tested by anyone. It must have been. Why would Kevin Ryan lie and say that his boss had said they tested the steel and lose his job?
Click to expand...


Let's just clarify here... "tested" or "certified"? I doubt they individually test every piece of steel that goes into a building. Steel is certified. Even Kevin Ryan wasn't stupid enough to claim UL tested the steel (although UL did get involved in testing the recovered steel as part of NIST's investigation).

Kevin Ryan's claim was that UL CERTIFIED the steel (which they didn't).

-Gumboot
 
Arus808 said:
Why is it pure conjecture?

Did you not familiarize yourself with the fireproofing type that was used on these support structures? The buildings were 30 years old, and its safe to assume that much of that fireproofing didn't last or opened holes along these supports during that time. And most fireproofing, as pictured in early images of the WTC towers are the type that would normally "flake" off if enough pressure was put to it



Sorry, but when does a Water quality tester's opnion on structural steel matter?
Click to expand...

He is not a water quality tester. He is a chemist (like Frank Greening). He was the top manager in that division of UL.

Please watch this lecture he gives:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan
 
Kevin Ryan is my favorite character in Loose Change. Just because of how they reference him, "Kevin Ryan, of UL". No position mentioned, at all. The ridiculous nature of his claims and just the anti-science of what he said, caused me to remark to my colleagues, "Who did they get, the JANITOR from UL?" When it turned out I wasn't that far off, I was fairly amused.

Seriously, UL doesn't certify steel, they don't test steel. They do test various assemblies for fire resistance and other things. The thing they are probably most known for is testing electrical wiring in appliances and lights.

I very much doubt that steel is tested in most buildings. At least by any independant testing firm, like UL. If we specify anything we say that it needs to be built to a certain recognized specification, like ASTM # XX or something along those lines. But that doesn't mean it's tested specifically, it just means that it should be built to the same standards as the assembly that passed that particular test, probably years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom