• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for Ryan Mackey

Horatius said:
Reading more of that, on page 347, they mention "Now consider the force carried by the shear studs attaching the floor beam to the floor slab when there was little or no lateral resistance provided by the girder" and, in the paragraph bridging pages 347-8, "The nominal capacity of a 3/4 in. stud is roughly 20 kip at room temperature (Chapter 11); thus one would expect that, when a floor beam is not restrained from thermally expanding, while the floor slab to which it is attached with shear studs is restrained due to its in-plane stiffness, the shear studs will fail and the floor beam will have little resistance to thermal expansion or to lateral-torsional buckling."

From this, it seems clear that the "shear studs" are a small (3/4 inch) connector between the floor beams and the floor slab. The elements labelled "studs" in the diagram of fig 5 of the paper cited would be what NIST is calling the "floor beams".


At the top of page 346, NCSTAR says, "In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders (Cantor 1985). Thus, in those locations where there were no opposing beams, resistance to thermal expansion of the floor beams would have been provided primarily by the lateral stiffness of the girder".

I suspect this was the "Gotcha!" phrase that superlogicalthinker is latched onto. Of course, we can see that they're discussing a completely different element that the "studs" labelled in that figure, and they only say they didn't exist in one part of the structure - on the girders. We should also note that they consistently make a distinction between the "girders" and the "floor beams" (See, for instance, their Fig. 8-19 on page 346). It's clear from the rest of the document that these shear studs did exist between the floor beams and floor slabs.

So, busted.
Click to expand...

Yep.

The documents he cited were referring to two different areas as evidenced below.


NCSTAR 1-9

p 15.

Most of the beams acted compositely with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically the shear studs were 0.75 inch diameter by 5 in. long, spaced roughly 1 ft to 2 ft on center. The number of studs on a floor beam was indicated on the design drawings. Photographic records showing the demolition of a floor slab (tenant renovation) on the south side of a typical tenant floor confirms the number of studs shown on the drawings. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders i.e., composite action did not develop between the girders and the slab.
 
RedIbis said:
I started reading some of it from the beginning and I thought it was very interesting. Tony S asks some specific, relevant questions. Gravy enters with vague bluster. Mackey provides civil, persuasive responses.
Click to expand...

...and then Tony S follows up by accusing those who disagree with him of being jews.
 
Swing Dangler said:
If you are sincerely interested in investigating the potential waste of tax payer money through Ryan Mackey's participation on JREF forums during JPL work hours...
Click to expand...

We've seen petty vindictiveness from twoofers before, but trying to make up for an inability to make your case by contacting a forum members employers and trying to get him sacked hits a new low.

WTG, Swing.



EDIT: Jeebus... a three year old post. Who's the thread necromancer?
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
The kid with two posts.

... and I got dinged by the mods for "Derailing the thread" in reply. :rolleyes:

At least that silly, silly question was answered.
Click to expand...

Your first yellow card. Congrats.

It was completely unwarranted. I'd appeal it. Locknar's known for giving infractions to the most innocuous posts.
 
Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
Your first yellow card. Congrats.

It was completely unwarranted. I'd appeal it. Locknar's known for giving infractions to the most innocuous posts.
Click to expand...

I don't really care. It does lay to rest the fallacy that the Mods are all in my pocket, however, as has been claimed by many a Truther. :boggled:

(To Mods: The title of the thread is "Questions For Me." And I didn't initiate it, either. Anything I say is by definition on topic. Thanks.)
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
We've seen petty vindictiveness from twoofers before, but trying to make up for an inability to make your case by contacting a forum members employers and trying to get him sacked hits a new low.

WTG, Swing.



EDIT: Jeebus... a three year old post. Who's the thread necromancer?
Click to expand...

At least tying the previous low. That was what got Frank Greening banned.
 
Re: studs on girders:

NCSTAR1-9, pg 346 (vol. 1, pdf pg. 390)

"8.7.4 Absence of Shear Studs on Girders
In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders (Cantor 1985)."

NIST doesn't "say" this. NIST researched the issue, and reported the best info that they could find.

Irwin Cantor, P.C. said that they didn't use studs on the girders. In a report in 1985. (Clearly, he was brought into the conspiracy at an early stage… :rolleyes: )

As some have pointed out, a literal reading of the documents would appear to dismiss the discrepancy.

The expression "TYPICAL" is one of the most contention-raising call-outs in all of engineering documentation. Dividing the engineering world (since the 1980s) into "pro-TYP" and "anti-TYP" factions. Some viewing the word as verboten, others defending it vehemently. (Bizarre…)

In the 70's, "TYP" had two meanings:

1. "This feature happens in many places (perhaps a variable number) that appear obviously related. I don't want to cover the drawing with confusing lead, so I'll use the abbreviation 'TYP'."

or, as has been argued in this thread,

2. "unless otherwise specified". (i.e., "It is true on all floors, except if there is a specific call-out on a specific floor, which would take precedence.")

This is a valid argument, but it doesn't get to the truth of the matter.

I believe that there is a real discrepancy in the documentation here.

I would suggest that - for someone who is bothered by this discrepancy and feels it is important to get to the bottom of the matter - an email to both Mr. Cantor and Mr. Salvarinas (if they can be found) would settle the matter in short order. As would a photo of the girders during construction.

[My judgment would be to go with NIST's assessment. Neither of the articles written by Mr. Salvarinas or Mr. Cantor had the gravitas of the NIST report. Neither would have been inclined to examine this sort of detail with the rigor of NIST.]

I don't believe that the presence of studs in the girder would have changed the analysis results to any significant degree, as suggested by Fig. 11-9 of NCSTAR1-9 pg. 476 (Vol 2., pdf pg 138), which shows the location of the modeled studs. Note the proximity of shear studs on the ends of the floor beams to the girder. Those studs tie the concrete to the floor beams, which are tied to the girder. Ergo, in the model, the concrete is still proximally tied to the girder thru the beams.

Until the expansion causes the studs to shear. If present, studs in the girder would have sheared in the girder (or pulled out of the concrete) at a very low temperature. (See section 8.7.4 & the calculation (4) on page 347.)

IMHO, their presence in the girder could have caused the girder to roll about its long axis prior to shearing. Possibly causing the girder to fall off of its seat at a lower temperature than NIST predicted.

tom
 
R.Mackey said:
I don't really care. It does lay to rest the fallacy that the Mods are all in my pocket, however, as has been claimed by many a Truther. :boggled:

(To Mods: The title of the thread is "Questions For Me." And I didn't initiate it, either. Anything I say is by definition on topic. Thanks.)
Click to expand...

I have a question for you:

How are the debate negotiations going with Mr. Deets?

I get the feeling that you are not interested in such a debate.
 
RedIbis said:
I ... How are the debate negotiations going with Mr. Deets?

I get the feeling that you are not interested in such a debate.
Click to expand...

Deets endorsed CIT flyover delusion. How do you debate someone with an insane claim. Explain how you debate an insane claim of a fly over when the DNA of the passengers was found in the Pentagon due to the crash of 77?

How does the debate go? Do you have to be nuts to believe that claptrap? Debate? Deets has zero to debate, he only has talk, opinions, no numbers, no sources, nothing worthwhile, only hearsay and lies.

Go ahead RedIbis, defend the flyover, present some evidence to refute RADAR, FDR, and DNA. How is it going with that? I get a feeling you are not interested in figuring out 911.
 
RedIbis said:
I get the feeling that you are not interested in such a debate.
Click to expand...

And why should he be?

We still have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Drone strikes in Pakistan are waaaaayyy up.

Guantanamo Bay is still open.

Israel still thrives.

Hamas and its Gaza asylum inmates still wallow helplessly in destructive genocidal self-pity.

Larry Silverstein still sits upon his plush corinthian leather upholstered throne as the king of his New York real estate empire.

95.4% of Americans don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

What would defeating Dwain Deets in a debate win for our side that we do not already have?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
And why should he be?

We still have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Drone strikes in Pakistan are waaaaayyy up.

Guantanamo Bay is still open.

Israel still thrives.

Hamas and its Gaza asylum inmates still wallow helplessly in destructive genocidal self-pity.

Larry Silverstein still sits upon his plush corinthian leather upholstered throne as the king of his New York real estate empire.

95.4% of Americans don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

What would defeating Dwain Deets in a debate win for our side that we do not already have?
Click to expand...

I look at it from a different point of view: What has Deets said that hasn't already been presented and refuted? What I've seen to date haven't been anything more than rehashes of old, disproven trutherisms. Unless there's more to his information than that, there is literally no point to debating him. It'd be as useless as debating a flat-earther.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
And finally:

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper:" Seven Wold Trade Center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects" I challenge any of you to look it up.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical (there's that word again) collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

and they clearly were according to this paper in 1986 lol!

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???
Click to expand...

Having looked at the Salvarinas fabrication and construction paper and the NIST model I'd have to disagree that NIST had no shear studs on the column 79-44 girder.

If you look at fig 11-9 on page 476 you'll see shear studs (as light marks) all along that column. What they didn't do was model them with break elements.


From NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 page 475-476
The area where break elements were modeled was selected to reduce the model size without biasing the results for simulating the initial failure event.

Framing connections outside the connected area, ... , were modelled as either fixed or pinned, using typical modeling approaches.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the opposite of what Superlogicalthinker is saying, i.e- that beam is tied to the floor more securely in the model because it doesn't have break elements on all of its shear studs.

That's my reading of it anyway but I'm not an engineer.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Just to let you people know, I will keep popping this up until you answer. LOL!

And finally:

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper:" Seven Wold Trade Center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects" I challenge any of you to look it up.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical (there's that word again) collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

and they clearly were according to this paper in 1986 lol!

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???
Click to expand...

The Salvarinas (who worked for Frankel Steel, the fabricators) paper does show shear studs along the girders in question.( Pdf page 20.)
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf

The actual final fabrication shop drawings by Frankel Steel however, show no shear studs on the girders in question as shown in NCSTAR 1 (pdf page 387. )
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

In the shop drawings, the number of shear studs in the plans on beams and other girders are noted as “< xx >”, there are none along the girders in question. Note also that whereas the Salvarinas paper shows 32 studs along the beams, the shop drawings have been changed to 28. Modifications to plans occur often in construction.
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
The Salvarinas (who worked for Frankel Steel, the fabricators) paper does show shear studs along the girders in question.( Pdf page 20.)
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf

The actual final fabrication shop drawings by Frankel Steel however, show no shear studs on the girders in question as shown in NCSTAR 1 (pdf page 387. )
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

In the shop drawings, the number of shear studs in the plans on beams and other girders are noted as “< xx >”, there are none along the girders in question. Note also that whereas the Salvarinas paper shows 32 studs along the beams, the shop drawings have been changed to 28. Modifications to plans occur often in construction.
Click to expand...

The original WTC 7 building was completed in 1987 and Salvarinas wrote his paper in 1986. The building was 47 stories tall, so it would seem the 12th and 13th floors of the building, where NIST says the walkoff occurred, were complete when he wrote his paper.

The shop drawing change you are suggesting took place, to not use the 32 as designed shear studs on the girder from column 44 to column 79, would have been a major one and one would think Salvarinas would have noted it.
 
Last edited:
I think care needs to be taken when reading these drawings and the distinction between "beams and "girders". The floor framing almost always refers to the "beams" where as major structural connections are referred to as "girders".

From NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 (PDF 393)

Consider the girder that spanned between column 79 on the interior of the building and column 44 on the exterior
Click to expand...

From (PDF 59)

Most of the beams acted compositely with the floor slab through the use of shear studs.......................Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for girders.
Click to expand...


The figure that was used to make the case that NIST is "omitting" the studs does not make this distinction.

This whole thing seems like someone trying to use incomplete information to make a definitive case. Basically being lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom