Funny you should mention that. Something doesn't look quite right to me about NISTs illustration. Do you see anything missing?
Fig 8-21 NCSTAR 1-9 p. 349 -
Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
Fig 8-21 NCSTAR 1-9 p. 349 -
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
While the Pepper letter asks the Inspector General to investigate the possibility of potential negligence or misconduct on the part of the lead NIST investigators, its primary request is for the Inspector General to have NIST redo the analysis, but this time with the omitted items included.
The NIST model in the WTC 7 report is invalid without the pertinent structural features it omitted being included, as they make a significant difference in the outcome and prevent the hypothesis put forward in the report that the girder's fall initiated the collapse.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Seriously now-do you aspire for irrelevance, or do you want people to see what you see?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
It sounds like you aren't following. I would say you would be able to if you were familiar with the drawings of the structural members and their connections. If you want to participate in the discussion here you should be.
Last edited:
I am willing to accept that NIST just made a series of omissions and errors that happened to make their conclusion look a little more plausible than it would otherwise have,
The burden of proof here remains firmly on NIST. What has been proved is that their report into WTC7 is riddled with errors and omissions. That these remain uncorrected by them is indeed a grave situation.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Irrelevant. You are accusing NIST of malfeasance and coverup, and you speak of your desire to bring guilty parties to justice.
A point I'm sure you could prove adequately and appropriately to the relevant professional community by publishing a suitable paper in a prominent peer-reviewed professional structural engineering journal. Accusing professional colleagues either of malfeasance or negligence would seem to require some adjudicated rigor on your part.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I see many things missing. The drawing in the NIST report simplifies the shop drawings in several respects. I assume you are talking about the transverse stiffeners.
Yes. Do you think that they should have left those out of their illustration?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
All the things that were left out? Or just the one thing you're obsessing over?
The stiffener plates, and there are actually two of them.
If you, as a construction professional were asked to illustrate this connection would you leave them out?
Attachments
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Why just those?
Straw man. What I would do and why has no bearing on what NIST did and why. You're the one accusing them of malfeasance, so you figure it out their "why." Be sure to provide evidence that your description of their "why" is correct.
You're dodging the issue. You can't bring yourself to openly admit that you would have included them because if you do, that implies that NIST should have.
You have claimed to be an expert in the field of engineering, and that peoples lives are entrusted to your critical thinking and engineering ability and to admit publicly that you would have omitted those elements from an illustration is just too much for you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, I'm preventing you from begging the question.
And now you're so desperate to avoid having to prove your point that you're putting words in my mouth.
If you believe NIST should have included those elements in the drawing and that do so was a fatal, purposeful omission, you'll have to prove that.
Animal
Master Poster
It all comes back to the same thing......troofer claim "cover-up" via the omitted web stiffeners yet cannot reason why NIST would add the seat stiffener.
For whatever reason, troofers seem to think that their attempts to case doubt on the NIST will somehow give credibility to their CD claim. Nothing could be further from reality.
What else do you see missing?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Dimensions and tolerances, for one.
So when NIST decided to change the seat connection configuration in their analysis they referred to that. Why did they not also offer their rationale for the omission of the stiffener plates?
The addition of a seat stiffener would have made no difference to their analysis in terms of walk off, but the inclusion of the stiffener plates would have.
Strawman, I never mentioned CD.
Now what's the name for those column side plates? You laughed your ass off earlier when they were referred to as such, saying that the name was wrong. What would you call them?
So, no other elements then, just the two stiffener plates?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Unless, of course, seat failed in the simulation.
So what do you think happened to make WTC 7 fall down?
And people trust their lives to your engineering ability? Heaven help them.
Straw man. What I think has no bearing on what NIST said in their report.