Will you address the fraud in the final report?
[FONT="]There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.[/FONT]
[FONT="]1)[/FONT][FONT="] The girder collapses twice.[/FONT]
<snipped for brevity>
Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:
August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder.
Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazona...IST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf
This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.
* "on center" - a term that means “apart”
[FONT="]This bit of sophistry seems to be their reasoning:[/FONT]
9-1 pg 15 [59]
"The structural design drawings (Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers 1985) specified design forces for connections and suggested a typical detail, but did not show specific connection designs; this was standard practice on the U.S. east coast. The erection drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985) indicated that design shear forces for the typical beam and girder connections were to be taken from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) beam design tables for beams without shear studs, using 1.5 times those forces for beams with shear studs. However, actual connection designs were obtained from fabrication shop drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985a), which provided detailed descriptions of the floor connections and column splices in WTC 7."
This paragraph is discussing shear forces for floor beam and girder connections. It does not say there were no shear studs on the floor beams and girders, yet they conclude that there were shear studs on the beams but not the girders.
This paragraph can be interpreted two ways.
1) The designers made the beam and girder connections stronger because they did not use shear studs. [to cut cost]
2) The designers were making the beam and girder connections stronger than the minimum requirements by 50%. [would not add a great deal of cost]
There is no justification for assuming there were no studs on the floor girders.
* * * * *
[FONT="]3)NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351[/FONT]
[FONT="]To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24.
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at
2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion. [/FONT]
[FONT="]4) [/FONT][FONT="] No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.[/FONT]
Speaking of which.... Christopher.... while searching online in doing some background checks on your claims to respond to your latest post I came across this interesting article which bears a striking resemblance --
word for word I might add -- to the above post you made. At least give credit where credit is due if the arguments you post to us are not your own:
A significant portion of the argument you copied and pasted was written by Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns and that excerpt you gave was posted almost in its entirety. Should I assume the introductory portion of that post was also copied from another source, verbatim with your little touch ups to match the formatting on the forum?
When you're ready to argue with your own words... any day now.
The hypothesis was that the feeder pipe fractured in the north east generator room at the connection box and a subsequent fire weakened column 79.
Only column 79? Sheesh between you and RedIbis holy crap. Is oversimplification a pastime for you two? For the record... sir... The National Institute for Standards and Technology was not the only source to offer an opinion at the time regarding the potential role of the diesel fuel in the collapse. NIST certainly did not simplify their at the time
working hypothesis down to the simple weakening of a
single column, they attributed -- at the time -- such fires as playing a
contributory, but not a principal role to the fires which weakened he
overall structural integrity of the building. Again, hence the earlier point which you utterly ignore -- that not all of the information pertinent to the final conclusion was available
at the time the progress report was released. Other groups offered similar opinions around the same time. This
article obtained from the New York times (the original link access requires a subscription:
LINK) provided statements by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The article quotes him reiterating that controlled demolition is not needed to explain the WTC 7 collapse:
"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed." The article continues: "Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned. [...] A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said."
But of course we're arguing over an unfinished document when the final one is already out, after having done all of the investigation necessary to eliminate the fuel as a principal culprit to the collapse. I'm baffled as to why you continue to waste oxygen on a former report based on nothing more than shallow semantics when the final one ironically comes to the same conclusion as you, albeit through a different more refined process than simple reliance on a single photograph.
I have read the report and have seen the drawings. They are not sufficient for a structural engineer to do an analysis as they could easily altered by simply leaving out the shear studs on the girder in question.
Excuse me, do you need help with that? You've done this more times than I can count. You had to copy and paste your last argument, now you want to shift goal posts because I brought up a point your writers forgot to mention? Don't waste my time unless you can provide definitive proof that this happened, your credibility is shot if you can't stand to spend the time to look for this material yourself, let alone source it; and you were lecturing me on taking hearsay at
face value? The hypocrisy you just displayed in your argument was insulting in of itself, I'm not kidding... It's not my intention to sound like an ass, but it really is annoying to find out that I'm responding to someone else's argument. :\
There is no legitimate reason to withhold the original shop drawings from the public. This is not acceptable.
Who said NIST was witholding them from the public? Find the appropriate archives and apply for a FOI request for them.
Neither the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor FEMA exclusively own the plans, and publications outside of these institutions are available to the public.
This article published in 1985 by Engineering News-Record scanned complements of one of the members of this forum from the Dallas Public Library is one such example of the available descriptions of the design. If you don't know where to look, then search library catalogs or go to city hall in Manhattan and see if they have the drawings available. They may not be easy to obtain or find, but the information you require for your, or rather
"their" standard of proof
is accessible with enough effort.
This is NOT a textbook, it is a critical scientific document and as such it must provide all relevant source material.
Oh it's a simple concept, an elementary one you failed to practice. Hearsay? It provides a bibliography sat the end of chapter 6. What do you want NIST to do submit their paper to
TURNITIN?
In other words, the crux point I am making is that NIST does not apply the "because I say so" card, they do exactly what you're requiring them to do, they source their material like any text book, like any research document for which they use external information that is not originally of their own work. You substantially diminished the fact that they
tell you
who did the original plans, who was responsible for the specifications they used, the entire shibang, and applying that same standard, it would be
LIKE saying that despite all of these text books deriving their information from all of their sources, they are STILL lacking because their entire contextual basis is based on a "because they say so" rule.
