'What about building 7'?

[Spanx]

Where was that? Where were they off by an inch?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/

Post 20 ^

 

[LSSBB]

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/

Post 20 ^

 

[Animal]

I don't mind much about that point specifically. Even NIST called a girder 'beam' in one instance:

The top clip angle used in STC connection at Column 79 and Column 81 was weak in tension and needed to be explicitly represented in the connection model. Therefore, the failure of the connection was governed by tension failure of the top clip angle or bolt shear followed by beam walking-off the seat and loss of vertical support.
​

(though it's arguable whether they referred to the 'beam' element of ANSYS in this instance).

The problem is that it may be a source of misunderstandings. NIST mostly refers to the beams that are not girders as "floor beams", to eliminate ambiguity I guess.

All girders are beams.(unless it is a truss )....not all beams are girders.

 

[gerrycan]

Also, what drawing does it say it is based on? I am pretty sure the drawing is called out wrongly there too.

you still didn't mention which drawing the figure you posted was supposedly based on..

They don't say. The legend only says "Based on fabrication shop drawings (Frankel 1985)"

You don't even realise when NIST are calling out a structural drawing. I reckon you thought "1985" referred to a year. You didn't realise that NIST were referring to DRAWING FRANKEL 1985

Oh dear, you did it again didn't ya........

So overlooking your latest NISTake, what are your thoughts on NISTs choice of drawing?

 

[GlennB]

That an inch on a support plate here or there might have saved the building is, frankly, laughable.

That an erroneous inch in NIST might justify a total re-investigation is equally laughable.

That this inch might somehow justify a continuing belief in CD is beyond laughable.

CTists - stop nit-picking inches and set out your theory of the WTC7 CD. Hmmm?

 

[DGM]

Oh dear, you did it again didn't ya........

So overlooking your latest NISTake, what are your thoughts on NISTs choice of drawing?

So? Maybe it's a bad crop on your part but the drawing # in the ledger is 198. You need to be more careful.

 

[gerrycan]

So? Maybe it's a bad crop on your part but the drawing # in the ledger is 198. You need to be more careful.

So you think NIST aren't referring to a drawing Frankel 1985 too?

 

[DGM]

So you think NIST aren't referring to a drawing Frankel 1985 too?

Explain how it matters. Show evidence the building would have survived if another drawing was used. This is the thrust of your argument.

BTW: How do you know what drawing the actually did use, just curious.

 

[LSSBB]

So you think NIST aren't referring to a drawing Frankel 1985 too?

How is this line of questions relevant to the discussion?

 

[gerrycan]

Explain how it matters. Show evidence the building would have survived if another drawing was used. This is the thrust of your argument.I don't know

FTFY

 

[DGM]

FTFY

How does this fix help you support your argument? I have not studied the drawings or do I care to. The fine point is not important. Explain how it matters or are you just trying to score points?

 

[Spanx]

At least MM knows what's going on

Maybe it's something to do with the wooden block building he likes to show.

 

[Spanx]

Duplicate

 

[pgimeno]

Delete

 

[pgimeno]

You don't even realise when NIST are calling out a structural drawing. I reckon you thought "1985" referred to a year. You didn't realise that NIST were referring to DRAWING FRANKEL 1985

And you surely can support that claim, right?

While you get on it, let me paste you some quotes and the REFERENCES section in NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter 2 p.15.

The quotes:

The structural design drawings (Cantor 1985) specified design forces for connections and suggested a typical detail, but did not show specific connection designs; this was standard practice on the U.S. east coast. The erection drawings (Frankel 1985) indicated that design shear forces for the typical beam and girder connections were to be taken from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) beam design tables for beams without shear studs, using 1.5 times those forces for beams with shear studs. The fabrication shop drawings (Frankel 1985a) were used to confirm information about floor connections, which NIST obtained from the structural and erection drawings and from photographs taken during renovations conducted during 1989 to 1990 on a number of floors. [...]
​

And the references (p.45):

2.7 REFERENCES
[...]
Cantor 1985. Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers, Structural Drawings, 7 World Trade Center.

Cantor 1988. Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers, Structural Drawings for Salomon Brothers 7
 World Trade Center Headquarters.

Frankel 1985. Frankel Steel Limited, Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center.

Frankel 1985a. Frankel Steel Limited, Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center (drawing set was not sealed).
​

And in page 359-360:

8.11 REFERENCES

[...]
Frankel 1985. Frankel Steel Limited, Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center.

Frankel 1985a. Frankel Steel Limited, Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center (drawing set was not sealed).
​

Are they talking about the same thing? Let's see the captions of some figures.

Whatever the correct drawing number is, it must contain a hell of a lot of information!

Oh dear, you did it again didn't ya........

Oh Gerry, Gerry... Why don't you listen when I tell you to drop that strategy?

Seriously, stop with the ad-hom. It backfires on you every time.

 

[Oystein]

You don't even realise when NIST are calling out a structural drawing. I reckon you thought "1985" referred to a year. You didn't realise that NIST were referring to DRAWING FRANKEL 1985
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32578&stc=1&d=1424814202[/qimg]

Oh dear, you did it again didn't ya........

So overlooking your latest NISTake, what are your thoughts on NISTs choice of drawing?

The drawing # seems to be cropped off in the bottom right corner. I see "198", the last digit may be missing.
Also, it's all difficult to read - I have no idea what this drawing shows.
Can you link to a higher resolution copy of the same? Thanks

 

[pgimeno]

The drawing # seems to be cropped off in the bottom right corner. I see "198", the last digit may be missing.
Also, it's all difficult to read - I have no idea what this drawing shows.
Can you link to a higher resolution copy of the same? Thanks

It's not really relevant to the discussion. It's just gerrycan squirming, trying to discredit me & NIST and failing.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Explain how it matters. Show evidence the building would have survived if another drawing was used. This is the thrust of your argument. I don't know

That explains everything...

 

[pgimeno]

Which argument was undermined by my mistakes? My main argument has been all the time that NIST was consistent in their assessments and that the errors that gerrycan claims to have found are not such. Which part of the mistakes I have admitted undermines that argument?

Due to the lack of response, I'll assume the answer is none.

Until such time as genuine rebuttal arguments appear, it would seem to make more sense to address the thread subject by discussing it only with people like myself who do not feel the constant need to disparage the argument and the arguer.

Sweet irony...

 

[gerrycan]

The drawing # seems to be cropped off in the bottom right corner. I see "198", the last digit may be missing.
Also, it's all difficult to read - I have no idea what this drawing shows.
Can you link to a higher resolution copy of the same? Thanks

I had to compress the original, so I took a couple of crops showing the title and some of the detail. This is the full image

And this is the title and a close up of some of the detail