WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Oystein]

Now that would be totally confusing wouldnt it. 2 sets of drawings with the same titles referring to different areas of the building.
The 'S' stands for structural, and I didn't 'obtain' anything. I am merely clarifying that Gamelon is 100% wrong when he says things like
"No, I don't agree. Every floor is accounted for in the "S" series of drawings.

You are wrong."WRONG
and......
"In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors."WRONG
Now that he seems to have stopped digging that huge hole for himself, he can maybe practise a wee bit of backpeddling.

That was excactly the kind of unhelpful pissing that I asked you not to engane in.,

Gamolon showed his drawing S-8, and it clearly is valid for the floors of interest.

Your turn now. You have a different set of S-drawings. You make claims. Where is your set of S-drawings, and what set do your claims address?

 

[gerrycan]

gerrycan,

The Skidmore drawings are their own set. The Emery/Roth drawings are their own set. The Frankel drawings are their own set.

The Skidmore drawings may have "S" drawings also. Within the confines of the Emery/Roth set, all floors are accounted for. Your claim about the S-8 drawing being for the 33rd floor may very well be. But THAT is within the confines of the Skidmore set.

You clearly don't understand how drawings in a construction setting are interpreted/read. If you did, you wouldn't be making such idiotic statements.

Gamelon, where do you get this stuff. First you claim to know what is above an "H" reference in a drawing which you say has 'something' there that cant be seen. Now you claim to know what a whole set of drawings is all about, when you have never laid eyes on them. Isnt it the truth that you only just learned of the existence of them here tonight?

 

[Gamolon]

That was excactly the kind of unhelpful pissing that I asked you not to engane in.,

Gamolon showed his drawing S-8, and it clearly is valid for the floors of interest.

Your turn now. You have a different set of S-drawings. You make claims. Where is your set of S-drawings, and what set do your claims address?

Exactly. It is clear that the "S" drawings I am referring to are contained in the Emery/Roth set.

There can be other "S" drawings contained in other sets.

gerrycan, did you make up a hypothetical "S-8" drawing in the Skidmore set or are you actually looking at one?

 

[gerrycan]

That was excactly the kind of unhelpful pissing that I asked you not to engane in.,

Gamolon showed his drawing S-8, and it clearly is valid for the floors of interest.

Your turn now. You have a different set of S-drawings. You make claims. Where is your set of S-drawings, and what set do your claims address?

Originally Posted by Gamolon
...
And as for your trying to correct me on the use of the word "girder" or "beam", a girder is STILL a type of beam.
Oystein: Ouch!

Right Oystein, cos you would never encourage or engage in unhelpful pissing would you.

 

[gerrycan]

Exactly. It is clear that the "S" drawings I am referring to are contained in the Emery/Roth set.

There can be other "S" drawings contained in other sets.

gerrycan, did you make up a hypothetical "S-8" drawing in the Skidmore set or are you actually looking at one?

You mean the set of drawings that you alluded to about 5 minutes ago, claiming to know all about, when you stated "The Skidmore drawings are their own set."
How would you know that, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM. You weren't aware they existed until i referred to them. How do you even know if they are different or not?? Again you are merely grasping in the fog, guessing.

 

[Gamolon]

Gamelon, where do you get this stuff. First you claim to know what is above an "H" reference in a drawing which you say has 'something' there that cant be seen. Now you claim to know what a whole set of drawings is all about, when you have never laid eyes on them. Isnt it the truth that you only just learned of the existence of them here tonight?

gerrycan,

You are clearly confused. As I have stated before, your lack of knowledge regarding construction drawings is very evident.

Any draftsman or designer knows that a revisions go in alphabetical order. If a designer needs to add another "box" above an existing revision in the title block he draws one. It is clear that there is a revision block above the last revision "H" shown here. Do you see it?:

Further proof that there is a revision "I" on that drawing (S-8) is the revision triangle shown here:

Show me these Skidmore drawings gerrycan. Or some reference to them.

 

[Gamolon]

You mean the set of drawings that you alluded to about 5 minutes ago, claiming to know all about, when you stated "The Skidmore drawings are their own set."
How would you know that, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM. You weren't aware they existed until i referred to them. How do you even know if they are different or not?? Again you are merely grasping in the fog, guessing.

Wow.

Let's try this one more time. Every floor is accounted for in the Emery/Roth set of drawings, known as the "S" drawings.

Just a question. Have you seen the Skidmore drawings for WTC7?

 

[gerrycan]

Wow.

Let's try this one more time. Every floor is accounted for in the Emery/Roth set of drawings, known as the "S" drawings.

Just a question. Have you seen the Skidmore drawings for WTC7?

You seriously believe that 4 or 5 drawings is enough for 47 floors, thats beyond silly.

 

[gerrycan]

gerrycan,

You are clearly confused. As I have stated before, your lack of knowledge regarding construction drawings is very evident.

Any draftsman or designer knows that a revisions go in alphabetical order. If a designer needs to add another "box" above an existing revision in the title block he draws one. It is clear that there is a revision block above the last revision "H" shown here. Do you see it?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/revision_I.png[/qimg]

Further proof that there is a revision "I" on that drawing (S-8) is the revision triangle shown here:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/revisionI.png[/qimg]

Show me these Skidmore drawings gerrycan. Or some reference to them.

So the box with the 'I' in it is the only part of the scan that didnt quite come out right, when everything else around it seems to be ok. Yeah, right Gamelon, if you say so.
And for your next revelation you state that revisions prefixed with letters go in alphabetical order. Wow, what a concept, who would have guessed it eh.

Gamelon, have you had a good look at the camber marks on the drawings that you have yet? The ones that are on the beams.

 

[thedopefishlives]

You seriously believe that 4 or 5 drawings is enough for 47 floors, thats beyond silly.

You really don't know anything about reading construction drawings, do you.

Also, to add more fuel to this fire, when do we get to see these Skidmore drawings you supposedly have access to? I'm just a casual observer in this thread, and even I can see you dodging the request to show the drawings.

 

[Gamolon]

You seriously believe that 4 or 5 drawings is enough for 47 floors, thats beyond silly.

4 to 5 drawings?!?!? Are you being stupid on purpose?

In the Emery/Roth set, there are 41 drawings that I can look at which I downloaded.

Drawings S-1 through S-7 cover the framing plans for floors 1 through 7. Drawing S-8 covers floors 8 through 20 and 24 through 45. Drawing S-9 covers floors 21 through 23. Drawing S-10, 19, and 20 show changes/additions (plates welded to the bottom of beams). Drawings S-12 is for floor 46. Drawing S-13 is for floor 47. Then there are framing plans for the roof. There are also other drawings in that set.

Did you even look at them???

I just called out 14 drawings dealing with the floor framing! Where did you get "4 or 5"???

 

[Gamolon]

So the box with the 'I' in it is the only part of the scan that didnt quite come out right, when everything else around it seems to be ok. Yeah, right Gamelon, if you say so.
And for your next revelation you state that revisions prefixed with letters go in alphabetical order. Wow, what a concept, who would have guessed it eh.

Gamelon, have you had a good look at the camber marks on the drawings that you have yet? The ones that are on the beams.

Yeah. What about them?

 

[gerrycan]

You really don't know anything about reading construction drawings, do you.

Also, to add more fuel to this fire, when do we get to see these Skidmore drawings you supposedly have access to? I'm just a casual observer in this thread, and even I can see you dodging the request to show the drawings.

I think you will find, when you casually scroll back, that i referred to a title sheet, thats all. No need to get all excited about that. As for what I do or dont know about drawings, your statement is mere speculation, nothing more.

 

[Gamolon]

You mean the set of drawings that you alluded to about 5 minutes ago, claiming to know all about, when you stated "The Skidmore drawings are their own set."
How would you know that, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM. You weren't aware they existed until i referred to them. How do you even know if they are different or not?? Again you are merely grasping in the fog, guessing.

You never answered the question gerrycan.

Did you make up the Skidmore drawing S-8 that showed floor 33?

 

[Gamolon]

I think you will find, when you casually scroll back, that i referred to a title sheet, thats all. No need to get all excited about that. As for what I do or dont know about drawings, your statement is mere speculation, nothing more.

Not speculation anymore. Not over your last few posts. You, without a doubt, have no idea how to read/interpret construction drawings.

 

[gerrycan]

Yeah. What about them?

I was wondering whether they would be the same for every floor or not. I mean, the floor differential shortenings would be dynamic throughout the construction phase wouldnt they? So would this dynamic be reflected proportionally in the cambers? I think that they would be unchanged, but i am interested in your opinion on this.

 

[Gamolon]

I think you will find, when you casually scroll back, that i referred to a title sheet, thats all. No need to get all excited about that. As for what I do or dont know about drawings, your statement is mere speculation, nothing more.

No you didn't. Why are you lying now? You clearly referred to a Skidmore drawing S-8 that was for the 33rd floor.

Ahhh, so youre not lookin at the skidmore. owings and merril title sheet then, where it says that s-8 is the 33rd floor framing plan. No wonder you're confused.

 

[Oystein]

gerrycan,

is there one, or are there two or more sets of S-drawings?

Gamolon showed S-8. He showed it is TYPical for a number of floors, including the floors of interest.
This S-8 is from the Emery Roth/Cantor set of S-drawings. This set includes a couple of S-drawings for individual floors, but not the floors of interest.


Can you please clarify your claims? You alledge:
- There ARE individual S-drawings for the floors of interest - or there MAY be such individual S-drawings?
- There is a second, separate and full set of S-drawings by Skidmore, or are the Skidmore and the Cantor drawings the same set - i.e. did Cantor provide some, and Skidmore provide some?
- ""In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors."WRONG" - i.e. you HAVE actually seen an S-drawing by Emery Roth/Cantor for a floor specific drawing of a floor between the 8th and 20th or between the 24th to 45th floor, other than 10th, 19th and 20th floor? If so, which specific floor has a floor specific drawing by Emery Roth/Cantor? have you seen it? Where can I see it? Or have you NOT seen it? How do you know it exists?

 

[Oystein]

I think you will find, when you casually scroll back, that i referred to a title sheet, thats all. No need to get all excited about that. As for what I do or dont know about drawings, your statement is mere speculation, nothing more.

You said earlier that you KNOW NIST has things wrong, and, from context, you made it appear like you knew this from S-drawings of the floors of interest what show things different than NIST has them.

Perhaps you misspoke.

So you only have a title sheet?

So far as I can see, S-8, as presented by Gamolon, is the only structural floor plan for the floors of interest that we can actually look at and use as evidence.

S-8 shows not shear studs


You say this is WRONG.


What's your evidence? I am still confused. Please clarify which drawings by whom exist of which floors, whether you actually have them in your possession and can presently look at them, or not, that show that NIST is WRONG!

 

[Gamolon]

I was wondering whether they would be the same for every floor or not. I mean, the floor differential shortenings would be dynamic throughout the construction phase wouldnt they? So would this dynamic be reflected proportionally in the cambers? I think that they would be unchanged, but i am interested in your opinion on this.

Don't change the subject gerrycan.

Did you make the Skidmore title sheet up that says S-8 is the 33 rd floor framing plan or do you actually have a drawing drawing that shows what you claim below?

Ahhh, so youre not lookin at the skidmore. owings and merril title sheet then, where it says that s-8 is the 33rd floor framing plan. No wonder you're confused.