Wizards Truss Me thread
- Thread starter A W Smith
- Start date
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I think it is...
Please answer my question:
Why do NIST say the fireproofing was blown off the steel?
-Gumboot
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
"chemist" is an incredibly vague term, just like physicist or engineer, someone who is a chemist will generally have some specialization
given that ryan was "top manager" of the water testing department i think we can hazard a reasonable guess as to where his area of expertise was
NIST seem to claim that the planes broke into little shotgun pellets and blew the fireproofing off
Based on their pseudo scientific tests where they fired 15 shotgun pellets at a small square of fireproofed steel.
You are totally wrong about that. They were tested under maximum structural load, which was twice the load expected on them
NIST has a lot of people hungry to move up and turning in your peers to get ahead is the name of the game! Real evidence would do it. You could turn in the liars and move up. Okay NIST fess up! Five years who is telling big lies? Sorry no one is telling lies at NIST since Ryan was fired!
Kind of self critiquing.
Sorry, but when you hook up with Ryan and argue his points you will fail as you are doing now. If you believe Ryan's presentation you will believe anything; good luck
Oh boy, anyone who voluntarily ties their wagon to Kevin Ryan's skirt is bound for disappointment. Sorry to "Wizard" and all of your
LashL at least watch the lecture. He really goes into detail about the NIST report
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
I've seen it. He knows not of whence he speaks.
Why are you so quick to buy into the alleged "expertise" of someone who actually has no expertise whatsoever on the topics upon which he purports to opine?
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
When you read the report you will see many photos documenting that fire resistant coating was blasted off the steel on the towers after the crashes. This happened in the real world. But you'd need to read the report to know it.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
That doesn't answer my question. Why do NIST claim that fireproofing was blown off by impact?
This is a very simple answer, Wizzy. In fact the answer is right here in this thread.
-Gumboot
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
But that doesn't prove that the fireproofing was blown off the steel --- it could have been removed by hand by lots of little Conspiracy Pixies. Why? Because.
...followed by a pout and a stamp of the foot.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
""UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim
"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]
Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”
Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:
“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:
“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.
“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html
The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim
"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]
Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”
Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:
“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:
“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.
“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html
The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html
The Almond
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,015
Untrue, the NCSTAR 1 report shows images of fireproofing blown off the trusses.
Why would you say that? Steel is tested for purity, homogeneity and load bearing capacity. Fire proofing is tested for fire resistance, not steel. This point has been made numerous times.
Why would NIST scientists lie to cover up a mass-murder by the federal government for which they had no actual culpability?
Just as a matter of interest, can Wiz tells me which - if any - of hte normal forms of fireproofing steel he believes would have been sufficiently robust to withstand the impact and ensuing explosion?
What other kinds of fire protection do you know of, Wiz?
What other kinds of fire protection do you know of, Wiz?
Yes, they are a mockery of the structural engineering field and quickly derail into "woo" territory and the Okie bombings. Why does Aquaboy spend so much time attempting to discredit various structural engineers who support a non conspiracy version of the WTC collapses with a flimsy "He worked on gubmit contacts!" instead of debating the structural issues?