Some want me to state things wrong with the NIST report. I copy and pasted the following from, of course, ae911truth. How do you treat the following:
NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.
NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS)
To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.
NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.
NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 4.75 inches.
Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.
9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.
NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle
NIST’s drawing of column 79 omits flange stiffeners that would have prevented the girder's failure
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.
Structural engineer Ron Brookman found that the Salvarinas “Fabrication and Construction Aspects” a document that outlines the basic structural system of WTC 7, shows 30 shear studs on the girder in question.
Davin Coburn, editor/researcher for Popular Mechanics, told Charles Goyette in this radio interview that he had seen a photo of the 10-story gouge
Coburn: "When the North Tower collapsed … there was damage to Building 7 … What we found out was … about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it …"
“We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate …”
Goyette: "Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them."
Coburn: "Correct."
Shyam Sunder misinforms Popular Mechanics in the article “Debunking The 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on floor five of WTC7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.
We read of NIST’s contention that heat had caused five 13th floor beams, framing into a long span girder, to expand.* They said that 5.5” was enough to push the girder across its 11” seat on column 79 beyond the vertical web, so that the lower flange of the girder became exposed to the entire weight of that floor area. NIST said that the flange could not support that load and folded upwards.
We further noted that NIST said that the 5.5” expansion was the maximum possible expansion. This is because any additional heating would soften the beam, leading to sagging rather than any greater pushing.
Thus NIST’s claim of an 11” beam seat and the maximum push of 5.5” were inextricably interwoven. Both had to be true for NIST's explanation to work. When NIST was notified last year about the seat width discrepancy, they issued an erratum document admitting this error in June 2012. *
However, in that same document they went on to say that they had also spotted another error, and added another paragraph to their erratum document. They claimed that a ‘typographical error’ had been made and that the 5.5" distance should have been 6.25".* Apparently they had transposed two figures, said to be axial and lateral expansion figures, and this new erratum document simply reversed them.
With the beam seat confirmed at 12” wide and the newly required sideways movement 6.25”, they nevertheless stood by their original theory.
Now that the newly required sideways shift distance of 6.25” was confirmed for the acknowledged 12”-wide girder seat, NIST’s earlier contention concerning the maximum heat (600° C.) before the beams would sag would come into question.
In our earlier videos we presented our carefully calculated findings that at the temperature required to expand by 6.25”, the beam would indeed have lost much of its strength, and would certainly be sagging rather than pushing the girder.
Yet another careless error by NIST was found. While discussing how we should raise this subject with NIST, a member of our team made another startling discovery which moved the entire debate into new territory. Upon close examination of the connection between Column 79 and the girder – a connection that NIST claimed failed – he spotted another steel element in the drawing that had not been previously mentioned. “Stiffener plates” were specified at the end of the girder and welded in place to both sides of the web and to the bottom flange.
NIST’s failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST’s motives.
When we mentioned these stiffeners to mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, who is involved in structural design in his professional work, he explained their role in such situations. He went on to say “The discovery of the girder stiffener plates in drawing #9114 is a game changer, because this drawing covers the exact location where NIST says the collapse initiated.”
Basically, these stiffeners brace the end of a girder between the lower load-bearing flange and its vertical web, so that if for any reason the girder did move laterally on its seat, the flange can transmit the extra load to that web and not fold upwards. In effect they make an I-beam end almost*into a "box" section.
This*discovery changes the debate. Whether the girder travel was 5.5” or 6.25” was now irrelevant because even at up to a 9” lateral move, that girder end would still have enough strength to remain*on its seat.*(It should be remembered that the girder was also held in place vertically by the five attached beams that were framed into it, and therefore the girder could not tip over sideways either – as was also postulated by NIST.)
The presence of these stiffener plates was brought to NIST’s attention by structural engineers. The lack of response from NIST has been*deafening, until just a few weeks ago.
On October 25, 2013, NIST replied to questions about the failure to include the stiffeners in many figures in the final WTC 7 report. They did acknowledge that they had consulted Frankel shop drawing #9114, but claimed:
“The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.”
