WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[leftysergeant]

The heated air was not trapped.

Of course not. It was escaping across the columns on the south side and across the undersides (steel) of each floor.

The rising smoke trails on the south side show the many venting paths exhausting the heat from within.

This also kept the fire well-oxygenated to produce more heat.

What was your point?

 

[Gamolon]

Welcome cromwell:

You wouldn't happen to still have this data or know where it can be down-loaded? Did you actually see these drawings? As A8-10 or 20 would be an overlap of what is described as "typical"(A8), I would like to see what was the reason for these separate drawings. Were they dated after construction, such as would be the case of a tenant remodel?

Drawing S-8-10, for example, an exact copy of S-8, was used to show plates welded to the bottom of certain floor beams. Below is am example taken from S-8-10

This revision was was issued for pricing only (noted on the drawing itself) on 11-25-86. The same goes for S-8-19 and S-8-20.

From what I can tell, the only reason these drawings were created was to show the addition of these plates on these particular floor. Since the plates were added at different areas, the smart thing to do would be to copy S-8 for each floor and show the changes. Which is what they did.

This was explained to gerrycan a while ago, but he never caught on.

 

[DGM]

That's what I figured.

Is he really figuring because these drawings exist, drawings that support his claims must also (and NIST is withholding them)?

 

[Gamolon]

That's what I figured.

Is he really figuring because these drawings exist, drawings that support his claims must also (and NIST is withholding them)?

From what I understand, he thinks that since S-8-10, S-8-19, and S-8-20 exist for these individual floors, there must be individual drawings for ALL the floors then. The problem is, these three drawings were created from drawing S-8 for the sole purpose of showing the new plates added to the bottom of the selected beams and any other changes made to these three floors. Could these floor beams have been reinforced for the Secret Service who were on the 10th floor? Bank vaults? Document vaults? Not sure. Maybe someone can shed some light.

That is why he refers to the shear studs shown on these three drawings. He thinks that the other "hidden" individual floor drawings, such as S-8-13 (doesn't exist) would show shear studs also.

That's his fantasy.

Both the Frankel (E12/13) and the Emery/Roth drawing (S-8) show no shear studs.

He has gotten so much information wrong (much more than just drawings) over his lengthy debate that it is clear he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He's never once admitted to his mistakes and errors.

No wonder he disappeared again...

 

[Gamolon]

Hats off to you Gamolon! You have dealt gerrycan countless mortal blows but he refuses to lie down. I just wanted to post a few lines on my own humble contribution to this debate.

In Feb 2012, gerrycan was touting his video ‘Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7’ in the Truth Rooms - now deceased - at Paltalk. I popped along and gave it the once over. Not for a moment was I convinced by his argument, but his use of raw data did trigger some interest.

I confronted gerrycan in the Truth chat room on the 6th February. I outlined this intervention in a post entitled “Shear Studs, WTC 7 and All That.” (Posted to Alt. Conspiracy on 8th February),

“ I asked him if S-8-10 and 20 were plans for floor 10 and 20. Gerry confirmed that
they were. I argued with Gerry that NIST had placed a floor plan for the
relevant floors E 12/13(floors 12 and 13) in the public arena showing no
shear studs.** Gerry argued that it was ridiculous to believe that floors in
WTC 7 would have been constructed, other than along the lines shown in
S-8-10 and 20 which showed shear studs on the relevant girder. S-8-10/20
must have been typical for the floors between 10 and 20.

My interest in gerrycan’s raw data did not abate. He had obtained the structural drawings via a FOIA by Ron Brookman. This raw data was available on the internet, so I downloaded and tabulated it. I quickly realized the con that gerrycan was pulling and made my thoughts known under the nickname ‘Geoff1917’ at Youtube,

“There are some serious errors and much that is irrelevant in your video. Most disgraceful of all, is your use of S-8-10 and 20. These floor plans have nothing to do with 12 and 13. For that you should have used S-8. But that didn’t suit your purposes did it, because it shows NO SHEAR STUDS on that girder…. these drawings have titles: S-8-10 is the '10 floor framing plan', S-8-20 is '20th floor framing plan' and S- 8 is 'TYP floor framing plan 8th to 20th & 24th to 45th'
It is obvious which of these plan relates to floor 12 and 13. S-8 shows no shear stud on that element, which is why you ignored it. Keep cherry picking gerry”

I went further, and posted “Shear Studs, WTC 7 and All That.” It was around this time that I came across your marvellous debate with him at David Ike.com. Your intervention was forensic and detailed. You convinced me 100%, that what I had observed about gerrycan’s video was correct; accept that you had the expertise that I lacked.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge, bringing clarity to the subject and thwarting the stupid Truther outpourings of the likes of gerrycan.

**NIST has since admitted that the reference cited in its report is incorrect and should reference ‘S-8’.

.

Thanks and welcome!

 

[gerrycan]

From what I understand, he thinks that since S-8-10, S-8-19, and S-8-20 exist for these individual floors, there must be individual drawings for ALL the floors then. The problem is, these three drawings were created from drawing S-8 for the sole purpose of showing the new plates added to the bottom of the selected beams and any other changes made to these three floors. Could these floor beams have been reinforced for the Secret Service who were on the 10th floor? Bank vaults? Document vaults? Not sure. Maybe someone can shed some light.

That is why he refers to the shear studs shown on these three drawings. He thinks that the other "hidden" individual floor drawings, such as S-8-13 (doesn't exist) would show shear studs also.

That's his fantasy.

Both the Frankel (E12/13) and the Emery/Roth drawing (S-8) show no shear studs.

He has gotten so much information wrong (much more than just drawings) over his lengthy debate that it is clear he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He's never once admitted to his mistakes and errors.

No wonder he disappeared again...

Gamolon, there are a lot of drawings that you or i have not yet seen that relate to wtc7. As for 'fantasy' and 'doesn't exist', I would have thought that the fact that I have shown a title sheet that proves you were wrong would be enough. You should be asking NIST for a full set of drawings. I stand by my statement of 9 months ago 100%, when I said I would like to have used drawings s-8-12 and s-8-13. The drawings that you claim do not exist.

 

[Oystein]

Gamolon, there are a lot of drawings that you or i have not yet seen that relate to wtc7.

Evidence?
Are you sure you are talking about drawings that show the as-built state?

What do they show for floors 12/13 or whatever the floors of interest are?

You said earlier that you KNOW that NIST has some stuff WRONG. Haven't seen the evidence. I think you are making that up.

As for 'fantasy' and 'doesn't exist', I would have thought that the fact that I have shown a title sheet that proves you were wrong would be enough.

Except you have not REALLY shown any of that. YouTube - private and unaccessible? C'mon - you do understand that no one takes you serious?

I read what DGM saw - it didn't sound good for your version of the story.

You should be asking NIST for a full set of drawings. I stand by my statement of 9 months ago 100%, when I said I would like to have used drawings s-8-12 and s-8-13. The drawings that you claim do not exist.

You must show evidence - NOW! - that they exist!

Not a private YouTube of titles.

Show the EVIDENCE.

Now.

 

[Gamolon]

Gamolon, there are a lot of drawings that you or i have not yet seen that relate to wtc7. As for 'fantasy' and 'doesn't exist', I would have thought that the fact that I have shown a title sheet that proves you were wrong would be enough. You should be asking NIST for a full set of drawings. I stand by my statement of 9 months ago 100%, when I said I would like to have used drawings s-8-12 and s-8-13. The drawings that you claim do not exist.

gerrycan,

Unfortunately for you, your inexperience with construction drawings regarding how they work and how they are interpreted have led you to make many, many mistakes.

As has been proven to you time and again, your claim that there are existing drawings named "S-8-12" or "S-8-13" are completely baseless. You have been shown that the only individual drawings for individual floors are for floors 10, 19, and 20. These drawings were created from drawing S-8 to show the added plates that were welded to the bottom of the floor beams in certain areas. Just basic drafting technique. Why would you put all those changes on a typical drawing when it would be a hell of a lot easier to copy S-8 (like they did) and cloud/add the changes on those drawings? For crying out loud, the revisions on those three drawings regarding the plates on the bottom of the beams are dated and marked "FOR PRICING ONLY"! What's wrong with you?

Even your "go to guy" Salvarinas says that the floor framing was typical!

Yet you want folks to believe that there are "unseen" drawings out there somewhere? Your track record of mistakes and errors is far to long for anyone to put any faith into what you're saying.

BTW, I STILL have not seen this title sheet you keep blabbing about. Take a screen shot and post it somewhere. What are you afraid of?

 

[Gamolon]

Gamolon, there are a lot of drawings that you or i have not yet seen that relate to wtc7. As for 'fantasy' and 'doesn't exist', I would have thought that the fact that I have shown a title sheet that proves you were wrong would be enough.

You must have missed what I said previously. That or you just see what you want to see.

There are no other drawings in the Emery/Roth set pertaining to individual floors. The only ones are S-8-10, S-8-19, and S-8-20. Those are pertaining to the added bottom plates and were issued for pricing.

The supposed drawings in your "title" drawing (which I have yet to see) are for a different set.

 

[BasqueArch]

Gamolon, there are a lot of drawings that you or i have not yet seen that relate to wtc7. As for 'fantasy' and 'doesn't exist', I would have thought that the fact that I have shown a title sheet that proves you were wrong would be enough. You should be asking NIST for a full set of drawings. I stand by my statement of 9 months ago 100%, when I said I would like to have used drawings s-8-12 and s-8-13. The drawings that you claim do not exist.

Due to the Powerball fever sweeping the country I will wager:

1. $50 that those drawings you are hiding from your now private video are for tenant improvements (interior build-out) done in 1989, two nominal years after the WTC7 shell was completed from the engineered design and the fabrication drawings publicly provided by NIST.
2. $50 that those tenant improvement plans were done for Salomon Brothers.
3. $50 that these plans you are hiding do not show individual structural plans or details specifically for floors 12 or 13.
4. $50 Powerball: that you will not produce in your next post the entire legible title sheet for review in this thread.

The above wagers are to be accepted in toto, not piecemeal, #1-4 together; 4 x $50 = $200 and to be awarded individually, #1,2,3,4 as each numbered wager is proven true or false. I.E. it is possible 2 are true, 2 are false, therefore this would be a push, no money changes hands.

If you accept this $200 wager, state so in your next post and you will be honor bound as I am to settle this debt.
This should be easy money for you.

 

[Miragememories]

"Except that there is plenty of evidence that fire can collapse steel, and both LeftySarge and TriForCharity have much more fire knowledge than you, and think it's perfectly possible...."

"Terry Manning just posted this to You Tube. It pretty well supports the dictum that one can expect steel structures to collapse even in a relatively low-temperature Class B fire. NSFW for language."

That does not show a steel office tower.

It shows a steel construction crane.

The steel tower supporting the crane did not collapse.

The failure was where the crane's arm connected to the top of the crane tower.

It is quite understandable the failure occurred at that connection since it would be under enormous torque. I believe in NYC recently, strong winds achieved a similar result.

It has never been my argument that fire will not weaken steel.

But the NIST blamed WTC7's migrating office fires for causing a major core column failure that lead to the complete destruction of that 47 story steel office tower.

A lower floor, heavy steel, fire-protected, undamaged, column.

Good luck finding an example of any fire, fought or unfought, causing a failure in a steel office tower core column that gives support to the NIST hypothesis.

Please show us the source of a 'dictum' that states; "one can expect steel office towers to totally collapse if they are subjected to unfought office cubicle fires"?

MM

 

[Animal]

That does not show a steel office tower.

It shows a steel construction crane.

The steel tower supporting the crane did not collapse.

The failure was where the crane's arm connected to the top of the crane tower.

It is quite understandable the failure occurred at that connection since it would be under enormous torque. I believe in NYC recently, strong winds achieved a similar result.

It has never been my argument that fire will not weaken steel.

But the NIST blamed WTC7's migrating office fires for causing a major core column failure that lead to the complete destruction of that 47 story steel office tower.

A lower floor, heavy steel, fire-protected, undamaged, column.

Good luck finding an example of any fire, fought or unfought, causing a failure in a steel office tower core column that gives support to the NIST hypothesis.

Please show us the source of a 'dictum' that states; "one can expect steel office towers to totally collapse if they are subjected to unfought office cubicle fires"?

MM

You are a liar. NIST did not say that fire caused the column failure.

 

[Miragememories]

"I would love to know where heat dissipates to when most of it is trapped inside of a building..."

"The south side in particular had a great number of broken windows after WTC1 fell.

The heated air was not trapped."

"Of course not. It was escaping across the columns on the south side and across the undersides (steel) of each floor."

bolding is mine

It was naturally escaping from the many avenues available to it. It was not sealed off from the outside and forced to build up enormous unreleased heat and pressure for 7 hours.

"The rising smoke trails on the south side show the many venting paths exhausting the heat from within."

"This also kept the fire well-oxygenated to produce more heat.

What was your point?"

What is your point?

All those broken windows and holes in the south side facade allowed heated air to escape and oxygenated the fires.

This allowed those office cubicle fires to burnout faster and migrate more quickly.

This would also reduce the likelihood of sustained extremely high air temperatures in the neighborhood of column 79 on 5 floors.

MM

 

[Justin39640]

Those winds (NYC) actually folded its boom back over the operator's platform. There's security cam video of it. Two completely different types of failures. So no, not similar at all.
Actually according to AU Channel 7's report on YT, they say the cause was the fire weakening the support cables. Much like the 7WTC fires weakening the support around column 79...

No support, gravity wins, again.

 

[twinstead]

All those broken windows and holes in the south side facade allowed heated air to escape and oxygenated the fires.

This allowed those office cubicle fires to burnout faster and migrate more quickly.

This would also reduce the likelihood of sustained extremely high air temperatures in the neighborhood of column 79 on 5 floors.

Why on Earth would I trust your opinion on this?

 

[Justin39640]

bolding is mine

It was naturally escaping from the many avenues available to it. It was not sealed off from the outside and forced to build up enormous unreleased heat and pressure for 7 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbB-Q1Xunw#t=9s
(a little NSFW at the extreme end)

 

[Miragememories]

"... the NIST blamed WTC7's migrating office fires for causing a major core column failure that lead to the complete destruction of that 47 story steel office tower.

A lower floor, heavy steel, fire-protected, undamaged, column.

Good luck finding an example of any fire, fought or unfought, causing a failure in a steel office tower core column that gives support to the NIST hypothesis.

Please show us the source of a 'dictum' that states; "one can expect steel office towers to totally collapse if they are subjected to unfought office cubicle fires"?..."

"You are a liar. NIST did not say that fire caused the column failure."

Were those fires not the source of the heat on which the NIST based its WTC7 total collapse initiation hypothesis?

MM

 

[Justin39640]

Were those fires not the source of the heat on which the NIST based its WTC7 total collapse initiation hypothesis?

MM

They were the source of heat that failed column 79's support.

 

[Animal]

Were those fires not the source of the heat on which the NIST based its WTC7 total collapse initiation hypothesis?

MM

Moving the goal posts like a good little troofer.
You are a liar. Your claims are made from ignorance.

 

[Gamolon]

But the NIST blamed WTC7's migrating office fires for causing a major core column failure that lead to the complete destruction of that 47 story steel office tower.

A lower floor, heavy steel, fire-protected, undamaged, column.

Is that what they say happened MM? The fires caused column 79 to weaken and then fail?

That's it?

If that's the case, you're lying then.

Good luck finding an example of any fire, fought or unfought, causing a failure in a steel office tower core column that gives support to the NIST hypothesis.

Can you find me another 47 story office building, trapezoid in shape, with long floor spans, and having core girders braced on only one side?

If not then your arguement is invalid.

Please show us the source of a 'dictum' that states; "one can expect steel office towers to totally collapse if they are subjected to unfought office cubicle fires"?

Please show us a source of a 'dictum' that states; "one can expect steel office towers to NOT totally collapse if they are subjected to unfought office cubicle fires."