Did The Building Do It?- results to be published in an academic journal

[greyl]

Did The Building Do It?
Karen Auguston Field, Editor-in-Chief -- Design News, August 17, 2006
<snip
Now, as the five-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attack draws near, Astaneh-Asl finally expects to have the results of his analysis published in an academic journal. The project, requiring thousands of hours to complete, was self-funded and conducted by Astaneh-Asl, his students, and analysts from the MSC.Software Corporation, which donated the structural analysis software (MD Nastran and Dytran).
_________________

He also noted that designers chose to fabricate many of the building columns out of very high strength steel <90 ksi steel as opposed to the more typical 36-65 ksi steel>. “This is not allowed by the structural design codes then and is still notallowed in current codes,” he stressed. “But the World Trade Center did not need to obtain a permit from City Hall. Because of special status as Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, they could make such choices outside the prevailing codes.”

This choice, he argued, allowed builders to use less steel in the columns presumably to save cost.

But by using high strength steel and thin cross sections, he pointed out, on impact the plane was able to cut through the outside steel bearing wall and enter the building--delivering thousands of gallons of jet fuel to the interior. During the ensuing fire, he said, the thin outside columns of the steel bearing walls were quite vulnerable to the rapid rise of temperature in them and reduction of their strength as a result of rising temperature of the steel.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html?industryid=43653

previously:

Forensic Expert Studying WTC Steel
(architecturalrecord.com- 01/10/02)
<snip
Last September, Astaneh-Asl was part of a team from the American Society of Civil Engineers that convinced the city of New York to delay recycling the WTC steel so that some of it could be studied for clues to the collapses. At a scrapyard in Jersey City he has helped identify the steel pieces to be saved.

The most important structural steel members to study are those severed by the planes and those that sustained the heaviest fire damage. The severed members will be studied to determine the speed and force of impact. Fire-damaged steel will be examined under an electron microscope for changes to its crystal structure; material scientists can then determine how long fires burned and at what temperature the steel failed.

Astaneh-Asl will also study structural members relatively unaffected by the crash or fires. “There were lots of different types of steel used in the towers—both high- and regular-strength—and we can learn things from pieces that fell hundreds of feet as the buildings collapsed,” he explains. Tests can measure the robustness of bolts and connections, for example, and identify the types of steel adequate for various structures.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20020110r.asp

[petgoat]

1. Interesting points,

NIST had only a negligible amount of perimeter column steel that
showed heating above 250 degrees C. I think it was three samples
out of 273.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. It appears from the link that his artcle

argues in defense of the pancake theory.

It should be interesting to see how this shakes out given that NIST has apparently now discarded the pancake theory.

[zforce]

17. Actually petgoat..None of them conclusively showed heating..

above 250c but one irrelevant piece which was "sulifidized" and assumed to emanate from somwhere below floor 53.

The official NIst position on the other two pieces of steel from the fire affected floors is that they "MAY"/"MIGHT" have exceeded temps above 250c.

[MervinFerd]

3. Flawed Design? The real coverup? and the Flaw in the Logic?

We have only the architects' opinion that the WTC towers could withstand the impact of a 707. Could be wrong. Could be the towers were dangerously weak all along.

This is a major flaw, not often noticed, in the 'no steel buildings have ever collapsed' argument: There is no way for the layman to know how much safety factor there was to begin with. So, if you discount the experts, you can't sensibly argue it -could not- collapse. It might have been on the edge all along.

If the experts who wrote the NIST report felt the design was flawed, I suspect you might have to read the text carefully to find that out. The opinion would be there, but carefully phrased.

One imagines that, in any event, future skyscrapers will be built of more sturdy materials.

[petgoat]

5. The towers were built for a hurricane. According to Dr. Eagar,

the architect of the zipper/pancake theory, the impact of
the jets was "like a bullet hitting a tree".

The forces of hurricane winds on the 1000 foot faces of the towers
were enormous. It was built twice as strong as it would have been
in Chicago. According to Kevin Ryan the perimeter columns had a
live load rating of 2000% of the dead load rating (and normal live
load was only equal to dead load)--thus the perimeter columns had
a safety factor of 10X.

[Brainster]

6. What Did Ryan Think of the Water System at the WTC?

Seeing as how that's what he's qualified to comment on.

[petgoat]

7. The source for Mr. Ryan's claim of the 2000% live load figure

for the perimeter columns is given in his article here.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

He says "the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby 'live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.'4"

<4> "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

Perhaps you should take up your argument with the Engineering News-Record.

I easily found this by googling "ryan wtc". Just curious--how did you get the information upon
which you base your ad hominem attack on Mr. Ryan?

[TAM]

9. His qualifications are public knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ryan

Or perhaps this will help...

Paul M. Baker
Manager, Media Relations
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Ill., USA
[phone] ext. 41001
Cell: [phone]
Paul.M.Baker(@)us.ul.com

UL Letter text:

On Nov. 11, 2004, a letter from Kevin Ryan, a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., addressed to the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), was posted on a Web site called the 9-11 Visibility Project (www.septembereleventh.org). In the letter, Mr. Ryan speculated on the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without ULís knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on ULís behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

ULís Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with ULís Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NISTís request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in ULís water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. fully supports NISTís ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryanís letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victimsí families and their friends.

TAM

[petgoat]

10. My point exactly.

If you google "Ryan" and "WTC" you get to his paper, and his argument.

If you google "Kevin Ryan" for the purpose of getting info for a
personal attack, you get wikipedia.

[AZCat]

13. Why in the world is Ryan...

using a pre-design, pre-construction article as the basis for his argument? Knowing how drastically a design can change during the process, wouldn't it make far more sense to use a more current source - one that might actually know what safety factors were used?

[petgoat]

14. That's a good point. Either the design didn't change or it did. nt

[MervinFerd]

20. "Dead Load", "Live Load"----WTF is that?

Unless you are actually a structural engineer, it's better not to be posing as one on TV.

But,
A. The designs are for an intact building; once you knock out a bunch of supports all is changed.
B. We have only the opinions of the people who designed the building of the safety factors. They could be wrong.
C. A hurricane is a predictable force and different from the loads that would happen after columns are knocked out. 10X for a hurricane might be 1 X for a vertical load after supports are knocked out.

[MervinFerd]

11. That's just an one (disputed) expert opinion. Logic, Mr. Goat.

The buildings may have been "designed" to withstand a hurricane; how do we know they actually could?

Besides, they were hit by a jetliner, not a hurricane. Those are different things.
At least out here in Reality-World.

Woo-Woo world is a different matter.

[petgoat]

15. Design for a hurricane means massive overbuilding.

As I said, it was built twice as strong as it would have been
built for Chicago winds.

And Dr. Eagar said the jet impacts were like a bullet hitting
a tree. Reports are that the oscillation period remained the
same after the intact, indicating no structural change.

[MervinFerd]

24. Holiday Inn Express, last night, Mr. Goat?

You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

And, I suspect "Dr Eager" doesn't either.

Why don't you move into Brain Surgery next? Just stay at that Holiday Inn Express next to the hospital, then show up in the OR. I'm sure they will give you the scalpel.

[savemefromdumbya]

4. fires not hot enough

[greyl]

8. l

[MervinFerd]

12. Really?

Wow, who knew?

[petgoat]

16. The only evidence that they were is the fact that the building

fell. The steel samples don't show it.

[MervinFerd]

19. The building -did- fall. Ergo, the fires were as hot as necessary.

This -really- is a weak and stupid argument.

[mhatrw]

27. Circular reasoning.

You are presupposing what you are trying to prove.

[MervinFerd]

30. Not really.

Absent some plausible alternative, structural damage and fire are the presumed agents.

The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

[greyl]

21. What material was running out of the tower shortly before collapse?

Did an Orange Julius machine crack open?

edit: adding pic:

[MervinFerd]

37. Burning PolyWater. nt

[mirandapriestly]

18. that is correct...eom

[Dancing_Dave]

22. This BS will never make it in to the Journal of 9/11 Studies!

He's not paying any attention to all the evidence about the how the WTC disintigrated...how it was blown to smithereens.

You can find a much better explanation of how the WTC was demolished here: http://www.st911.org/ In particular, check out the "How the Towers were Demolished" page by Gordon Ross.

[greyl]

23. You haven't seen the results yet.

What BS?

[MervinFerd]

25. There seems to be a new Schism among the Truthers:

"Thermitians" vs "Exploders"

I think "NoPlaneism" is an independent sect, but I can't quite be sure.

[greyl]

26. Yeah, I think there are many.

The only way I see out of it for them is for a rational 'ecumenical' movement of sorts to form, in which their ill-defined battle flag of Truth becomes secondary to valuing the use of the tools which have been proven to lead to accurate and successful models of reality. Logic, reason, and critical thinking.
Some deep schisms indeed, when so many who wrap themselves in a Truth logo react to critical thought like wounds do to salt.

[mhatrw]

28. There are seven schisms within NORAD about its response

on 9/11.

[MervinFerd]

29. Different thing altogether.

Don't know if your statement is true, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree.

So? Differing accounts of facts after a traumatic experience are universal. There was very likely some ass-covering as well. That's why you have objective investigations and tape recorders and testimony under oath.

What we see among the Truthers is a Schism worthy of the Fundamentalist Christians or the hard-core Bolsheviks. A dispute among True Believers which no facts or logic will settle.

Entertainment for the masses.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. If you don't even know if the statement in the previous post is true

or not, then how could you possibly arrive at the conclusion that it represents "different things" altogether?

Then you dismiss it with "so?"

I have never seen any serious researcher who claims that only thermate (or some related compound) was used to bring down the towers or #7. Do you have a link or any documentation to back that up?


Your post seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors.

[MervinFerd]

32. "For purposes of argument": It's a common debating tactic.

I concede the point, but then claim that I still win. See?

Differing accounts of events and facts are unlike differing Religious and Ideological convictions.

One can be resolved by rational argument, the other cannot.

The differences between NoPlaners, Thermitians and Exploders are not disputes among rational people. They won't be resolved by logic or evidence or compromise.

"Thermite AND Dyn-ee-mite" will only become another sect in the Grand Schism.

All good entertainment for the masses.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. So this is all fantasy football? No schism just you predict one? n/t

[MervinFerd]

34. No fantasy. The Schisms are already out in the open....

The NoPlaners denouncing Jones, the Thermitian Christ, for insufficient faith in NoPlaneism. The Thermitians responding in kind.

It's the inevitable result of the absence of standards of evidence and logic. The only way to keep a cult religion together is with an all-powerful Central Authority that can condemn apostates to Hellfire. Or cyanide Kool-aid--remember Jim Jones?

So, we need a Truther Pope that can force the factions back into one dogma--however improbable and incomprehensible.

Professor Jones seems inadequate to the task. The other Jones seems more charismatic, but he's a bit daft.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Saying it doesn't make it so, Mervin. I think you are creaming your

keyboard about a bunch of nonesense.

it wouldn't be the first time.

But good luck!

[MervinFerd]

35. "Smithereeners"--a new Truther Schism.

I'd been calling you guys "Exploders". "Smithereeners" is a much more apt term.

Henceforth that's what you shall be named.

Be fruitful, my son.