WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Gamolon]

Interesting, because I would never use revisions per sheet and have always used them per revision issue.

In my experience, it was both.

I'll give an example.

A steel mill client comes to us and wants to have a new ladle dryer installed in an area which currently has none present. Ladles have a refractory lining that needs to be replaced at times. The dryers are used to dry the lining after installation (in addition to also preheating ladles).

Ladle:

Ladle dryer/preheater. This unit is lowered over the top of the ladle to dry it or preheat it:

We need to supply the dryer with natural gas for example. As a designer, I would go to the client's drawing storage room and pull all the existing drawings which are associated with this area. I find one plan drawing of the area the dryer where the actual dryer will be be installed, drawing #1000. I find out that the existing natural gas line I need to tap into in order to supply the dryer is in an adjacent area to the left (west) of drawing #1000 and is drawing #900. I also need to create a new drawing for a couple of details. This will be drawing #3000.

I pull both existing drawings (#900 and #1000). I find that drawing #900 with the existing natural gas supply line I need to tap into has an existing revision "J" with a cloud around it that was done in 1985.

First, I erase the cloud around the area pertaining to revision "J", leave the triangle designation touching the cloud showing the letter "J" for the revision. I then draw my natural gas line, connecting to the existing natural gas line, and route it towards the adjacent drawing (#1000) which contains the area of the new ladle dryer. Each plan drawing will have a border line on the edge with a note saying which drawing to go to to see the adjacent area. The gas supply line I am routing will go to the border line and end there.The note on the border says "For continuation, see drawing #1000", or something of that sort.

I then cloud around my new line, including all dimension and notes, draw a triangle touching the new cloud, and then put the letter "K" in the triangle as that is the next letter in line. I then go to the title block and write a description for revision "K", date it with the current date, and then initial it.

I then go to drawing #1000. It's last revision was "D" due to a client change in 1967. That's the last time it was touched. I again erase the cloud, leave the triangle showing revision "D", draw my new dryer, the gas line coming from drawing #900, etc. I then draw a new revision cloud around everything new on that drawing and label it revision "E", since that is the next letter on the drawing proper.

I create my detail drawing, and then issue all three of them to the client for approval/construction.

It's all the same "revision issue" (the new ladle dryer), but the new, revised material is labeled on each drawing with the next letter in sequence on that particular drawing, hence revision "K" on one drawing and revision "D" on the other.

I'm not saying this is the way it is for every project, but how I did things when I was designing things for an engineering firm.

This was the same for me regarding something brand new which didn't use any existing/old drawings. If the drawings were issued for construction and the client came back a week later and wanted to change something, we would sequentially label each drawing affected with the next revision letter on that drawing. We would never use one revision letter per project. It was one revision letter per drawing, in sequence, whenever something changed on that drawing.

Sorry for the long winded post.

 

[Animal]

In my experience, it was both.

I can see how that method works for long term situations like that. Everything I do is involved with a shorter time frame.....i.e. building construction. Changes to drawings are issued as either addendums (changes to the drawings and specs before the bid is due / contract awarded) or bulletins (changes to the contract) Drawings and specs are changed and the addendum or bulletin is issued a number, regardless of how many sheets are changed, so I may end up with 100 bulletins each one only changed one different sheet out of a 500 page set. A summary is also issued which describes all the changes to each document so that there is a record at the end in case there are any challenges to costs etc. I do have to say that with cad, it is certainly easier to keep track of changes on drawings....I just assign the clouds a different layer and turn them off as new bulletins occur, but I have a built in record in the drawing file.

 

[gerrycan]

The third page of this discussion states the following:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/revision_I_sentence.png[/qimg]

This above statement is completely false. Following is the revision triangle "I" that I had found on drawing S-8. It resides to the immediate right of the beam connecting columns 54 and 61:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/revisionI.png[/qimg]

Along with the revision "I" shown above revision "H" in the title block. It is very light and cannot be seen, but there is definitely something there. The whole drawing is full of "faded" or "light" lines and text.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/revision_I.png[/qimg]

gerrycan had made this claim to me of the missing revision "I" on S-8 numerous times, and when I showed him the above, he never responded.

Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?
Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.

 

[Gamolon]

Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is the revision triangle on drawing S-8. It can be found immediately to the right of the beam between columns 54 and 61:

Here is the revision "I" above revision "H" in the title block. There is definitely something above "H". I said it could be to faded to see and only looking at the original drawing would you be able to tell if something was actually there or not:

Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.

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.

The "E" series of drawings (Frankel Steel) had specific floor drawings. In particular, E12/13 (floors 12 and 13).

Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79.

You see, the big mistake you are making in your video, "Shear Ignorance", is that you want the viewer to believe that because shear studs were called out on drawing S-10 and S-20 (drawings specific for floor 10 and floor 20) for the beam between column 79 and 44, those shear studs should be on every beam between column 79 and 44 for every floor.

That is incorrect.

 

[beachnut]

Hi Gamelon,

Just to be clear, you are saying that the revision 'I' is actually there, above 'H' but it is just too faded to see?
Also, do you still believe that there are no floor specific 's8' drawings for 12/13, and that the typical drawing would be used for these?
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, but it looks to me like this is what you are saying.

Is your CPU heat-sink still steel? lol

You still in the inside job fantasy world of nonsense? Fire did it, what did it in your world? Poor 911 truth, 11 years of solid failure. AE911 are gullible nuts, when will they wake up to reality? 11 years of ignorance and the best 911 truth has is recycled lies and fantasy. WTC 7? What the heck happens when you WTC 7 want to be engineers get to 77 and 93, with no knowledge or experience to understand WTC 7 collapse, how does this fantasy inside job work with 93 and 77? Fire caused the WTC 7 failure, what is your big picture claim when it comes to Girder 44-79?

Those who need to understand and prevent this failure in the future, have the money to study it; 911 truth makes up lies, real engineers are paid to design and make real change. I can't believe 911 truth can't grasp WTC 7 was not a standard building, was unique. I can't believe their conspiracy nonsense targets a building not attacked on 911. They can't find evidence in the towers, so they make up lies about 7.

 

[gerrycan]

Thanks, glad we have got that established. I will ignore for now the fact that you are totally guessing about what may or may not have been above the 'H' reference in the drawing, but the below statement is troubling. I will retype it, in the way I think would be less troubling. The additions are in red and the green bit is where you compound your error by guessing, again.

In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings that I am aware of,except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.

That's better, you agree?

 

[DGM]

Thanks, glad we have got that established. I will ignore for now the fact that you are totally guessing about what may or may not have been above the 'H' reference in the drawing, but the below statement is troubling. I will retype it, in the way I think would be less troubling. The additions are in red and the green bit is where you compound your error by guessing, again.



That's better, you agree?

You forgot to quote this part:

Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79.

You're welcome.

 

[gerrycan]

To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.

 

[DGM]

To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.

Why? If there was no revisions why not use a typical?

 

[gerrycan]

Why? If there was no revisions why not use a typical?

So you don't think that there are any differences in these floors? Have you looked at the drawings much???

 

[gerrycan]

Both the S-8 drawing from Emery and the E12/13 drawing from Frankel show no studs on the beam between column 44 and 79
Oh and btw, it's a girder.

 

[DGM]

So you don't think that there are any differences in these floors? Have you looked at the drawings much???

Yes, I have. I also don't believe these are the complete drawings as built. I seriously doubt these actually still exists (as builts that is).

 

[gerrycan]

Yes, I have. I also don't believe these are the complete drawings as built. I seriously doubt these actually still exists (as builts that is).

Of course these are not a complete set of drawings. The fact that there is no floor specific 's' drawing for all those floors is enough to establish that.
So are you agreeing that Gamelon is guessing when he says that.....
S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.
?

 

[DGM]

Of course these are not a complete set of drawings. The fact that there is no floor specific 's' drawing for all those floors is enough to establish that.
So are you agreeing that Gamelon is guessing when he says that.....
S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors.
?

What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this.

Maybe you could enlighten me with a theory as to how it actually did happen?

 

[gerrycan]

What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this.

Maybe you could enlighten me with a theory as to how it actually did happen?

The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.

 

[DGM]

The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.

So, you have no clue except to say they got it wrong (and you don't have very good proof of that)?

Tell you what. Wake us when you get the clue. I hate to sound crass but, that's the way it is. You have noticed that no one really is paying attention to you? Why do you think this is? Could it be you don't know what you're talking about?

Gerry, It's time you wake up to the fact you have to actually present something of substance. Give us a better theory. Until you do this you will stay where you have stayed for the last ? years. OK?

You do this, I promise I'll listen.(I have so far)

 

[beachnut]

The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, and their erratum statement of a few months ago is still short of what is on the drawings (stiffner plates etc).
As to what did actually happen, I think we should first establish what didn't happen then reinvestigate until we find a hypothesis that fits with both the drawings that we now have, and with the collapse as observed. The current story fits with neither.

What is stopping you or AE911T from investigating? Gage has no goal to investigate, he is hoping there are gullible people who will donate to the endless call for a new investigation, while ignoring the hundreds done, and reality.
What happened?, fire destroyed the WTC complex, it was clear on 911, and if you investigate further, fire did it. Good luck.

You and the entire world are free to study WTC 7; there was no inside job on 911, so have at it.

There are many studies done about the WTC complex. My tax dollars are done studying what was done by 19 terrorists. You and the failed AE911T can do what you want with your money, and send Gage around the world again, begging for dollars to plant the idea we need a new investigation for what fire did. A PhD in nonsense.

I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.

The point is ...

Did Tony prove it was fire and not CD? The point is, it was fire, not CD.

I don't understand wasting time on WTC 7, when the targets on 911 were WTC 1 and 2. How do the crazy conspiracy theorists fail to show it was CD on WTC 1 and 2, so they have to make fantasy CD on WTC 7. What paper did AE911T sponsor with their million dollars and over a thousand members who claim it was CD, thermite and other woo? It becomes silly to discuss the topic of the OP when the conclusion of AE911T is CD, and thermite. You can dismiss all the claims of 911 truth due to insufficient evidence, and pure nonsense. Where is your paper? Where is Gage's sponsored work? It is funny Gage is making money, and the over thousand members of his group are clueless he is the personification of fraud, and has no original ideas on 911.

Did Tony slides show the girder buckled?

 

[Oystein]

The point is that NIST have got the very connection that they blame, hopelessly wrong, ...

Perhaps I am missing something here, but are you saying both that
1. We don't have the relevant detailed drawing of the floor in question
AND
2. You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?

 

[Oystein]

What"s the point? Even if there was shear studs it still would not have prevented the collapse. I'm failing to see the whole point in this. ...

I think that's "moving goal posts"

 

[gerrycan]

So, you have no clue except to say they got it wrong (and you don't have very good proof of that)?

Tell you what. Wake us when you get the clue. I hate to sound crass but, that's the way it is. You have noticed that no one really is paying attention to you? Why do you think this is? Could it be you don't know what you're talking about?

Gerry, It's time you wake up to the fact you have to actually present something of substance. Give us a better theory. Until you do this you will stay where you have stayed for the last ? years. OK?

You do this, I promise I'll listen.(I have so far)

Seems to me that NIST already admitted that they made some errors around this column connection. I am sure you have seen that for yourself here -
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

They still do not aknowledge that they missed out whole elements, the stiffner plates for example.
Finally, when you are talking about 's-8', are you referring to the 33rd floor framing plan? Just checking to see if we are on the same page here.