• 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

tony szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

fwiw

in addition, in 1989 enormous structural changes were made to the interior to accommodate the needs of salomon bros - a cost of 200 million, 375 tons of steel, the addition of nine diesel generators on the fifth floor - 3 double-height trading floors were created in the rebuild.

Said cantor 'this is the first time i've ever seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building'

The Salomon solution; a building within a building, at a cost of $200 million
NY Times Feb 19, 1989
​
Click to expand...
 
BigAl said:
fwiw
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the shear studs could have been removed from the girder between columns 44 and 79 at the 13th floor during this 1989 rework?

From the Wikepedia article:

In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.[22] The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers.[23] Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."[23]

It would appear that the 1989 rework had nothing to do with the 13th floor.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Are you suggesting that the shear studs could have been removed from the girder between columns 44 and 79 at the 13th floor during this 1989 rework?

If so, what need would that satisfy?
Click to expand...

I'm just supporting my claim that WTC7 saw extensive internal re-work prior to 9/11.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Are you suggesting that the shear studs could have been removed from the girder between columns 44 and 79 at the 13th floor during this 1989 rework?

From the Wikepedia article:

In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.[22] The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers.[23] Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."[23]

It would appear that the 1989 rework had nothing to do with the 13th floor.
Click to expand...

DGM said:
I see no definitive reason to believe they were ever there. Do you?
Click to expand...




 
Hey RD,

I read it differently...

Reactor drone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Note that NIST says that the black squares represent "shear studs & connectors" (emphasis added).

I'm pretty certain that the black squares at both ends of each beam are connectors & all the intermediate squares represent shear studs.

The term "break elements" simply refers to an FEA item ("element") that can be set to fracture at a given amount of either deformation or stress. Normally, its stiffness of each element is given by a combination of the element's material properties, dimensions & loading condition.

When the part fractures, the program sets all the part's element stiffnesses to some tiny percent (about 1/1,000,000th) of its "unfractured" level. You don't set it to zero, because you'd get a bunch of "divide by zero" math errors.

Reactor drone said:
From NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 page 475-476

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.
Click to expand...

There is, IMO, a real contradiction between what Salvarinas says & what Cantor says. One of them is wrong. I'd bet that NIST got it right.

It's an indictment of thuthers' honesty that they only present half of that story.

Unlike the full-building FEA analysis, this is a small analysis that truthers (with FEA experience) could replicate in short order, with & without the girder studs, to quantify the difference. I fully expect that none of them will put out that effort, but will prefer to continue to cast baseless accusations.

matrix's assertion that "with the girder studs, the girder won't collapse" is absurd. Both because he has zero relevant experience to offer an informed opinion, and by the calculations (especially eqn 4) on page 347 of NCSTAR1-9.

tom
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

The building was built from the fabrication and erection shop drawings that show no shear bolts at the girders in question, not Salvarinas' abbreviated graphic drawings.

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.
Click to expand...

Shear speculation.
I'm not suggesting the shop drawing change took place, the shop drawing change did take place.
Salvarinas didn't note the change in the shop drawings from 32 to 28 studs on the beams either.
Salvarinas shows no studs for the core girders.

It is what it is, evidence that shear studs were not installed at the girders in question.
 
Last edited:
Basque,

Good catch.

The Frankel Steel shop drawings are the primary source of detail info on the framing throughout the WTC7 report. They are cited repeatedly.

They are clearly the closest to "as built" documentation available.


tom

PS. "Shear speculation..." :)
 
Last edited:
BasqueArch said:
The building was built from the fabrication and erection shop drawings that show no shear bolts at the girders in question, not Salvarinas' abbreviated graphic drawings.



Shear speculation.
I'm not suggesting the shop drawing change took place, the shop drawing change did take place.
Salvarinas didn't note the change in the shop drawings from 32 to 28 studs on the beams either.
Salvarinas shows no studs for the core girders.

It is what it is, evidence that shear studs were not installed at the girders in question.
Click to expand...

You are assuming the shop drawing was not tampered with, and that is okay for your personal point of view. But it needs to be remembered that since it conflicts with what Salvarinas shows there is a possibility that tampering occurred to support the NIST position.

Shear studs aren't shown on core girders anywhere so that is a settled matter. However, the girder in question, that NIST says walked off its seat on the column, is not a core girder. There is a difference in the as designed and as built documentation which needs to be verified. There is a big difference between going from 32 to 28 shear studs on a particular beam or girder in the shop drawings and removing them altogether.

If this were brought before a court there would need to be testimony from those involved to reinforce the shop drawing change as having actually occurred during construction and to remove any doubt that it wasn't tampered with later on to support a conclusion. The shop drawing change itself would not stand as being definitive evidence.

One more thing I want to point out is whether or not there were signatures on the shop drawing in question. The pdf you showed from the NIST report didn't show the signature block of the drawing. The people involved in signing that drawing would be those who would need to testify to eliminate any doubt that it could have been tampered with later on to support the NIST position.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I see no definitive reason to believe they were ever there. Do you?
Click to expand...

They were in the as designed documentation, and any change would have had to occur during construction, so your point here is biased without a basis.

BY the way, you really should give someone a day or so to respond before implying they won't. I don't sit at the computer all day long to ensure I reply immediately to a response to something I said on this or any other Forum. I had to go to work yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You are assuming the shop drawing was not tampered with, and that is okay for your personal point of view. But it needs to be remembered that since it conflicts with what Salvarinas shows there is a possibility that tampering occurred to support the NIST position.

....

The people involved in signing that drawing would be those who would need to testify to eliminate any doubt that it could have been tampered with later on to support the NIST position.
Click to expand...

Not even worth replying.
 
beachnut said:
When in doubt the 911 truth handbook of woo says start more conspiracy theories to cover up all your failed claims of CD.
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure of yourself there Beachnut. This thing could very well end up in court and we will all see just who was making things up as they went along.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Don't be too sure of yourself there Beachnut. This thing could very well end up in court and we will all see just who was making things up as they went along.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath, your movement has been failing for 9 years.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Don't be too sure of yourself there Beachnut. This thing could very well end up in court and we will all see just who was making things up as they went along.
Click to expand...
Only in your paranoid conspiracy theories. What a bunch of moronic nonsense. Your real CD delusion has failed for years and your papers are filled with lies, political tripe and nonsense. Got evidence?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
...This thing could very well end up in court and we will all see just who was making things up as they went along.
Click to expand...
There are a few preliminaries to getting into court which would give either you or the Truth Movement in general some problems:
What is the basis of action?
What type of action is proposed?
Therefore what jurisdiction?
What party would bring the action?
What standing does that party have?
...and all that before we get to the substance of the claim. And, if CD is part of that substance, neither evidence not a prima facie case after 9 years.

And all of this legal action would require a more precise definition of "This thing..." than the usual truther vague innuendo and failure to say what they are complaining about so they can shift the goal posts and say "I didn't mean that..."

Why not practice now? Put in one paragraph what "This thing..." is and what action is plausible in what court under what jurisdiction.

Get real Tony. Discussing all this rubbish is a bit of fun on an Internet forum. The real world will demand clarity as to what you are claiming and proof. Both of those beyond what anyone has so far tried from the truth movement.

For one specific example how long do you think you would last under cross-examination if confronted with the real factors I have raised several times? You can easily avoid discussion and get away with evasive answers here on the Internet. The only cost here is that possibly hundreds of intelligent readers get to see your lack of a case. Those tricks would not last minutes under cross examination.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are assuming the shop drawing was not tampered with, and that is okay for your personal point of view. ...
Click to expand...

Not assuming that something was tampered with is more parsimoneous than assuming that something was tampered with.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Don't be too sure of yourself there Beachnut. This thing could very well end up in court and we will all see just who was making things up as they went along.
Click to expand...

The fact that it hasn't ended up in court yet, and that no one is even attempting to get it in court, is very telling.
Where are Richard Gage's procedings? Why had Steven Jones not filed legal
complaints?
The only party I am aware of that at least employs a lawyer to do some legal paperwork is the whacko club of Judy Wood. We know the train wreck trail that attorney Jerry Leaphard has created at JREF alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom