Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: The Great Thermite Debate... [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)126. Engineers were pressured "to take off [their] engineering hat and put on [their] management hat".
The major activity that day focused upon the predicted 18 degrees Fahrenheit overnight temperature and meeting with engineering management to persuade them not to launch. The day concluded with the hurried preparation of fourteen viewgraphs which detailed our concerns about launching at such a low temperature. The teleconference with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and MSFC started with a history of O-ring damage in field joints. Data was presented showing a major concern with seal resiliency and the change to the sealing timing function and the criticality of this on the ability to seal. I was asked several times during my portion of the presentation to quantify my concerns, but I said I could not since the only data I had was what I had presented and that I had been trying to get more data since last October. At this comment, the general manager of Morton Thiokol gave me a scolding look as if to say, "Why are you telling that to them?" The presentation ended with the recommendation not to launch below 53 degrees. This was not well received by NASA. The Vice President of Space Booster Programs, Joe Kilminster, was then asked by NASA for his launch decision. He said he did not recommend launching, based upon the engineering position just presented. Then Larry Mulloy of NASA (who was at KSC) asked George Hardy of NASA (who was at MSFC) for his launch decision. George responded that he was appalled at Thiokol's recommendation but said he would not launch over the contractor's objection. Then Larry Mulloy spent some time giving his interpretation of the data with his conclusion that the data presented was inconclusive.
Just as he finished his conclusion, Joe Kilminster asked for a five minute off-line caucus to re-evaluate the data, and as soon as the mute button was pushed our general manager, Jerry Mason, said in a soft voice, "We have to make a management decision." I became furious when I heard this because I knew that an attempt would be made by management to reverse our recommendation not to launch.
Some discussion had started between the managers when Arnie Thompson moved from his position down the table to a position in front of the managers and once again tried to explain our position by sketching the joint and discussing the problem with the seals at low temperature. Arnie stopped when he saw the unfriendly look in Mason's eyes and also realized that no one was listening to him. I then grabbed the photographic evidence showing the hot gas blow-by and placed it on the table and, somewhat angered, admonished them to look and not ignore what the photos were telling us, namely, that low temperature indeed caused more hot gas blow-by in the joints. I too received the same cold stares as Arnie with looks as if to say, "Go away and don't bother us with the facts." At that moment I felt totally helpless and felt that further argument was fruitless, so I, too, stopped pressing my case.
What followed made me both sad and angry. The managers who were struggling to make a pro-launch list of supporting data actually supported a decision not to launch. During the closed managers' discussion, Jerry Mason asked in a low voice if he was the only one who wanted to fly. The discussion continued, then Mason turned to Bob Lund, the vice-president of engineering, and told him to take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat. The decision to launch resulted from the yes vote of only the four senior executives since the rest of us were excluded from both the final decision and the vote poll. The telecon resumed, and Joe Kilminster read the launch support rationale from a handwritten list and recommended that the launch proceed. NASA promptly accepted the recommendation to launch without any probing discussion and asked Joe to send a signed copy of the chart.
The change in decision so upset me that I do not remember Stanley Reinhartz of NASA asking if anyone had anything else to say over the telecon. The telecon was then disconnected so I immediately left the room feeling badly defeated.
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/ProfPractice/Exemplars/BehavingWell/RB-intro/Override.aspx
Just as he finished his conclusion, Joe Kilminster asked for a five minute off-line caucus to re-evaluate the data, and as soon as the mute button was pushed our general manager, Jerry Mason, said in a soft voice, "We have to make a management decision." I became furious when I heard this because I knew that an attempt would be made by management to reverse our recommendation not to launch.
Some discussion had started between the managers when Arnie Thompson moved from his position down the table to a position in front of the managers and once again tried to explain our position by sketching the joint and discussing the problem with the seals at low temperature. Arnie stopped when he saw the unfriendly look in Mason's eyes and also realized that no one was listening to him. I then grabbed the photographic evidence showing the hot gas blow-by and placed it on the table and, somewhat angered, admonished them to look and not ignore what the photos were telling us, namely, that low temperature indeed caused more hot gas blow-by in the joints. I too received the same cold stares as Arnie with looks as if to say, "Go away and don't bother us with the facts." At that moment I felt totally helpless and felt that further argument was fruitless, so I, too, stopped pressing my case.
What followed made me both sad and angry. The managers who were struggling to make a pro-launch list of supporting data actually supported a decision not to launch. During the closed managers' discussion, Jerry Mason asked in a low voice if he was the only one who wanted to fly. The discussion continued, then Mason turned to Bob Lund, the vice-president of engineering, and told him to take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat. The decision to launch resulted from the yes vote of only the four senior executives since the rest of us were excluded from both the final decision and the vote poll. The telecon resumed, and Joe Kilminster read the launch support rationale from a handwritten list and recommended that the launch proceed. NASA promptly accepted the recommendation to launch without any probing discussion and asked Joe to send a signed copy of the chart.
The change in decision so upset me that I do not remember Stanley Reinhartz of NASA asking if anyone had anything else to say over the telecon. The telecon was then disconnected so I immediately left the room feeling badly defeated.
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/ProfPractice/Exemplars/BehavingWell/RB-intro/Override.aspx
One basic cause (perhaps the main cause) of the o-ring disaster was pressuring engineers to take off their engineering hats and put on their management hats. And it seems to me this is a persistent and ubiquitous problem for professionals like engineers and scientists.
Edit to add: one of the main reasons I ceased working as an actuary (my job now is Software Architect) is that all my clients wanted me to work backwards, to manipulate the actuarial methods and assumptions to give them the answer they wanted rather than my professional opinion of what the answer really was. Just wanted to disclose a personal factor that flavors my opinion on this.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
300 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
Thanks, for the breezier read ... but, "thermate" didn't break the government's case for me ...
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#36
That half-informed crap about aluminum glowing red probably came from Rush Limbaugh.
GoneFishin
Jan 2014
#293
That's the half-information I was referring to. But some here may be fooled, so good luck to you. nt
GoneFishin
Jan 2014
#297
I couldn't care less about the burden on Jones & Co. They're not here, and they're not going to be
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#156
Right. Lack of evidence is no reason for you not to believe what you want to believe. nt
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#168
"they would not collapse neatly into a small pile using conventional demolition"
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#19
We were talking about WTC7. You claimed you had an FEA that showed that the columns could not
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#153
The sims bear no resemblance to reality. The real tower did not tip until the last phase
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#169
You claimed in 158 that the sim animations of WTC7 showed tipping to the south.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#172
The tipping CAN be seen in the animation of the "with impact damage" sim
William Seger
Dec 2013
#174
Oh, it's the smileybot, back to demonstrate his erudition and analytical facility
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#220
Yeah. But even that citation about the towers used the word "must" so many times
GoneFishin
Jan 2014
#294
He's prevaricating. Just as I stated. If you can't spot a snowjob it's fine with me. There may be
GoneFishin
Jan 2014
#298
As soon as you stop playing silly games and deal with your misrepresentations
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#35
Another thing not found in the rubble was steel that had been heated to the extent that NIST assumed
eomer
Dec 2011
#42
First, "... none of the samples were from zones where such heating was predicted.”
William Seger
Dec 2011
#43
That's not stating it precisely right - the samples they found DID match their predictions.
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#46
Oh, well, the samples that were found also matched the predictions of the thermite theory.
eomer
Dec 2011
#47
That is the data that the model was fitted to in the first place. It confirms nothing.
eomer
Dec 2011
#49
You were expecting they'd find a model that wouldn't fit what physical evidence they had?
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#52
So a rigorous mathematical and professional modeling of the WTC tower structures checked
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#75
Choosing the model that agreed the closest with all visual and physical evidence is circular?
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#78
The modeling that was "within the margin of error" includes collapse and no collapse.
eomer
Jan 2012
#83
I hesitated to reply because I think this is going to be difficult to work through.
eomer
Jan 2012
#84
maybe part of the problem here is "the big question they were trying to answer"
OnTheOtherHand
Jan 2012
#85
I'm arguing, rather, that NIST didn't demonstrate that therm*te wasn't *needed*.
eomer
Jan 2012
#100
the way this thread (and the broader "debate") has gone, I think the distinction is huge
OnTheOtherHand
Jan 2012
#127
I still don't see the distinction between would and did, but let me not use that word.
eomer
Jan 2012
#128
Engineers were pressured "to take off [their] engineering hat and put on [their] management hat".
eomer
Jan 2012
#126
But those column temperatures did not play any part in collapse initiation
William Seger
Dec 2011
#66
That is one aspect of the model. Do you seriously propose that you can choose parts of the model
eomer
Dec 2011
#74
I'm "proposing" that the temperature of the columns did not affect the floor sagging
William Seger
Dec 2011
#80
Those temperatures are an integral part of the model and one that NIST spent several pages on.
eomer
Jan 2012
#82
Well, actually, he only proved that he could cut a little way through a small steel beam
William Seger
Dec 2011
#62
That was just a weld that he managed to unweld, not cutting through a column.
William Seger
Dec 2011
#67
"didn't even bother to look for evidence of explosives and/or incendiaries"
William Seger
Jan 2012
#104
Nonsense. The only reason to test for explosives in any of those cases...
William Seger
Jan 2012
#117
Far from being insane, it was proposed by experts immediately after the collapses,
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#146
If you're citing Downey as your expert, shouldn't you be the one quoting him?
William Seger
Dec 2013
#161
I cited Romero to the effect that a few charges in key places could have brought the buildings down.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#163
I'm not a metallurgist. You seemed to be dismissive of the test results that were available,
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#238
So you're suggesting that there were not other, more edifying tests that could have been done
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#247
It was the one that showed heating to only 480 F. The other tests did not counterindicate that. nt
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#259
The Saudet video shows that the antenna fell 18 feet before the building started falling.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#265
No it doesn't. The top of the N. wall would be moving if the building were tilting.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#270
Since your gif begins at the moment the tilt begins, we have no way of knowing
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#278
Who cares what an anonymous internet poster thinks? We need new investigations.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#228
So the anonymous internet poster who says we shouldn't listen to anonymous internet posters...
AZCat
Dec 2013
#230
I expect reasonable people to look at the facts, to look at the demonstrably incomplete and corrupt
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#239
Any kind of job that demands conformity, obedience, and avoidance of controversy.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#251
If you had bothered to read Appendix C you would know that the sulfidated steel does melt at 1000 C.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#266
The eutectic mixture liquefies the steel at a temperature below its normal melting point.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#276
The eutectic mixture includes the iron from the steel. That's why the steel liquefies.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#282
If the eutectic melting happened at 1000C you still have to explain where the sulfur came from,
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#285
Calcium Sulfate is not a possible source. It's already fully oxidized. It's inert.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#289
The steel was subject to a high-temperature sulfidation attack causing intergranular melting.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#255
So with Mr. Cole's report you discount what he did say and deny the evidence on specious grounds.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#264
So run some thermate on some steel and show that it's not the same as the FEMA samples. nt
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#286
You're the one claiming that Mr. Cole's sulfidation attack on the steel is not the same as WPI's
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#290
"I try to avoid having conclusive opinions and instead stick to established facts"
zappaman
Dec 2013
#189
Sorry, you can't build a case based on an expectation of government competence
BlueStreak
Dec 2013
#200
How do you know FBI protocols abot ignoring warnings? You must be highly placed.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#204
You don't need charges on the fire floors. WTC1 came apart in floors above the fire floors.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#187
If there's reprogramable det sequences, that can all be adjusted after the fact
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#193
Radio control needn't interfere with other equipment if the frequency was chosen carefully,
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#206
I could make microprocessor-based detonators. Probably 400,000 people in the USA could.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#208