|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 7:56:57 GMT -5
See my post in the "Pentagon" thread.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 10:45:03 GMT -5
More debunking, this on Steven Jones:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 12:14:01 GMT -5
"More debunking"
You mean more attacks on those who don't swallow official conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 11:51:51 GMT -5
No, more proof that those who swallow unsubstantiated ridiculous conspiracy theories have something wrong with them. Professor Jones is a proven liar who effectively lost his job at BYU for being a ridiculous unscientific oaf.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 12:47:19 GMT -5
"more proof that those who swallow unsubstantiated ridiculous conspiracy theories have something wrong with them."
Are you saying there's something wrong with you?
"Professor Jones is a proven liar who effectively lost his job at BYU for being a ridiculous unscientific oaf."
That's your opinion. As usual, attacking those you disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 14:33:58 GMT -5
There's something wrong with you mate, an inability to look facts in the face for starters.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 14:43:43 GMT -5
There's something wrong with you mate, an inability to look facts in the face for starters. I could easily say the same for you. Is that all you have left to resort to, making silly statements?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 14:51:01 GMT -5
Think about it carefully, what is a fully laden airliner deliberately crashed at 600mph going to do to a skyscraper that a nearly empty airliner accidentally colliding at 135mph isn't going to do ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 14:57:29 GMT -5
Think about it carefully, what is a fully laden airliner deliberately crashed at 600mph going to do to a skyscraper that a nearly empty airliner accidentally colliding at 135mph isn't going to do ? Why would I want to think about that carefully?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 11, 2013 10:38:20 GMT -5
I brought this thread back to life because I found yet another article that proves NIST committed blatant FRAUD with its reports. This one shows that NIST deliberately modified data to try to make its column 79 theory work. The modifications are comparisons between its first report (June 2004) and its final report (August 2008). NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear StudsBy Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns The NIST Final Draft on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 has many flaws, including blatant fraud. In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders. Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes: 1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13. 2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6. 3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building. This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs. Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph): June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter] Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders. wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59] Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders. nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdfThen, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case: August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87] At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams. nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up. *NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4 img508.imageshack.us/img508/1164/figure124ic1.jpg** "on center" - a term that means "apart" www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10699
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 11, 2013 14:21:06 GMT -5
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports - Part 1Editor’s note: To this day most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed along with the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report on this building’s collapse by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. The NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review – the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories. Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book titled "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7." The studies below represent years of work by Chris in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that the NIST’s theory of the fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading. The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings. More than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation. Chris has also been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7. During the next five months, we will be presenting five articles written by Chris Sarns that address the alleged fire-induced collapse of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001. Quotes from the NIST WTC 7 report are shown in " brown" 1. BURNED-OUT FIRE The timing of the fire on floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse. The images shown below on the left are Sarns' approximations using the photogrpahs as a guide of where and at what times the fire existed on floor 12. On the right is the NIST ANSYS computer model for the same times. "Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 378 [pdf p. 40]NIST will not release the input data because doing so might " jeopardize public safety" <see illustration using the link at the bottom of this post> Quotes and photographs from the NIST reports on the collapse of WTC 7 Fire spread: "On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way." NCSTAR 1A p. 19 [pdf p. 61]
"The mass of the furnishings per office was not known" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 60 [pdf p.104]
"the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32 kg/m2" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 376 [pdf p.38]All things being equal, the fire would have spread consistently. But the NIST ANSYS computer model (above) inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burns around column 79 on the east side and then burned the offices to the southwest of column 79 two hours later."Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min." NCSTAR 1A p. 47 [pdf p. 89]Photos showing progression of fire: "From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Looking from southeast corner to the south face.
Fire on floor 12;[1] area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12[1] moved to east face and progressed to the north
[1] fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12." Part IIC p. 21
Figure 5-114. Oblique view of the east face of WTC 7, taken at 2:08:28 p.m. +/- 1s Figure 5-117. Photograph showing fires on the east face at 2:28:43 p.m. +/- 1s [34, 37 and 40 are column numbers] Fire first appears on the north face of floor 12 about 80 feet from the north-east corner:"By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face." NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p.62]The fire spread internally through the offices around column 79 and under the beams which allegedly underwent enough thermal expanion to push a girder off its seat and initiate the "global collapse" at 5:20 p.m.Figure 5-119. Photograph showing the north face of WTC 7 taken from a helicopter around 2:57 p.m. +/- 5 min Figure 5-121. Cropped photograph of the north face of WTC 7, taken from a helicopter around 3:05 p.m. +/- 5 min “In less than 15 min, the fire simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly westward about one-third of the way across the north face.” NCSTAR 1a P. 20 [PDF P.62]Figure 5-135. Cropped photograph showing the east edge of the north face and an oblique view of the east face. It was likely taken between 3:20 p.m. and 3:40 p.m. "The fire continued spreading westward in starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m." NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p. 62]Figure 5-136. Frame taken from a video shot from near the corner of Greenwich Street and Park Place showing the north face of WTC 7 between 3:49 p.m. and 3:54 p.m. The photographs reveal that the fire on floor 12 had progressed from the south side of the building to the north side by 3:00 p.m. – and had engulfed the northeast corner by about 3:15 p.m. This means that the fire in the area in question (around column 79 and under the beams and girder in the northeast corner) had burned out at about 3:50, because as noted above, the fires burned for only about 20 to 30 minutes in any given location.References: June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5) NCSTAR 1A Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 and 2 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 Part IIC NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster – Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster – Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse – April 5, 2005 Next month we will examine what Chris Sarns has described as "MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION" because NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder that allegedly initiated the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 to fail in its computer simulation. Be sure to check back next month for the continuation of this exceptional analysis.(above links and additional NIST quotes next to photos are available if you go to the link below) www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 12, 2013 16:01:40 GMT -5
Utter rot mate. Again the AE liars ignore the south side damage, show a few photos of the north side and make out there wasn't much fire. The south side proves major fire and major structural damage.
Don't be conned by AELIARS, look at what real experts have to say.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 13, 2013 8:29:20 GMT -5
Utter rot mate. Again the AE liars ignore the south side damage, show a few photos of the north side and make out there wasn't much fire. The south side proves major fire and major structural damage. Don't be conned by AELIARS, look at what real experts have to say. That's your best response? Why did you bother? This guy spent years researching the NIST reports and found OBVIOUS fraud. He showed and documented the deliberate discrepancies that you and anyone else can verify for yourself/themselves and all you can do is trash these findings as if they're made up. The photos are real, unless of course you want to make a claim that these are also doctored. And he used these photos to prove how NIST tried to make their column 79 story work. He wasn't trying to show there wasn't much fire, even though all the photos (and videos including those not shown) speak for themselves. And as you can see, this is just a small sample of what he found, there's more coming that you can just trash as you go, just watch this space, I'll be posting much more.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 1:42:38 GMT -5
South side pics show much more evidence of serious fire than those of the relatively unscathed north side which you posted. Sooty windows can mask fire in daylight except for where fire has caused window breakage and the windows did break on the North Side in the positions where fire can be seen in your photos. For fire to break glass it has to be VERY hot. This corresponds with the wealth of information proving serious widespread fire in WTC7. Your so called expert also ignored the structural bulge in the south west corner that had developed and was one of the reasons firefighters were pulled out of the area by Chiefs Daniel Nigro and Peter Hayden. His research is irrelevant.
There's no evidence of controlled demolition there my friend, no evidence of it being destroyed by explosives no blasting caps no detcord, only evidence of natural bending moment induced collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 7:36:15 GMT -5
South side pics show much more evidence of serious fire than those of the relatively unscathed north side which you posted. Sooty windows can mask fire in daylight except for where fire has caused window breakage and the windows did break on the North Side in the positions where fire can be seen in your photos. For fire to break glass it has to be VERY hot. This corresponds with the wealth of information proving serious widespread fire in WTC7. Your so called expert also ignored the structural bulge in the south west corner that had developed and was one of the reasons firefighters were pulled out of the area by Chiefs Daniel Nigro and Peter Hayden. His research is irrelevant. There's no evidence of controlled demolition there my friend, no evidence of it being destroyed by explosives no blasting caps no detcord, only evidence of natural bending moment induced collapse. And of course, as usual, you haven't contradicted the findings of deliberate discrepancies in the 2 NIST reports. Stating your opinion about something entirely different does nothing to contradict these findings of fraud, which is your only objective when discussing 9/11 issues. All you're interested in is to try to trash anything and everything that contradicts the official story. You never take the position that anything in the official story needs to be questioned, even when obvious discrepancies are found and documented. One of your favorite tactics is to change the subject. Others see through you as well and that's why your real agenda was questioned.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 10:45:37 GMT -5
NIST FREE FALL ADMISSION
The free fall issue is critical to understanding the collapse of WTC7. This is Consensus Point "WTC7-2", followed by a quote taken directly from NIST's Final Report: Point WTC7-2: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall AccelerationThe Official Account
Having denied for years that WTC 7 came down at free fall acceleration, NIST repeated this position in August 2008, when it issued a report 1 on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment. Shyam Sunder, the head of NIST’s WTC project, said – speaking within the framework of its claim that the building was brought down by fire – that free fall would have been physically impossible. 2The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis 3 by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment had been challenged by Chandler and Dr. Steven Jones in a public review, and NIST then re-analyzed the fall of WTC 7. In its Final Report, 4 NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler and Jones. 1. NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7. Draft for Public Comment. August 2008. ↩ 2. “…you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous” (“WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008). Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it removed both of them. However, the video is now available elsewhere. Also available is its transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment.” ↩ 3. David Chandler, “WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall,” Part I, December 7, 2008, at 9:07. Chandler’s report of free fall was supported by NIST itself: NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (brief report), November 2008, p. 45. ↩ 4. NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (brief report), November 2008, p. 45. ↩ "The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-2/This is Consensus Point "WTC7-3": Point WTC7-3: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without ExplosivesThe Official AccountIn its Final Report on WTC 7, 1 issued in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two seconds. NIST continued to say, however, that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, with no aid from explosives. The Best EvidenceScientific analysis 2 shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged 3 in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008). References for Point WTC7-3 1. NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (brief report), November 2008, p. 45. ↩ 2. Chandler, “WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III),” January 2, 2009, at 1:19 minutes. This analysis has been confirmed by NIST itself, in “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” NIST, August 2008 (originally at www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html). This version of the document, which was posted at NIST’s website at the time its Draft version of its WTC 7 report was published, has been replaced by a version that was updated September 17, 2010, in which NIST continues to acknowledge a 2.25-second stage of “gravitational acceleration (free fall).” ↩ 3. Sunder said: “A free fall time would be (the fall time of) an object that has no structural components below it. . . . The . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear (was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall). And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous” (“WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008). Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it removed both of them. However, the video is now available elsewhere. Also available is its transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment.” ↩ www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-3/
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 11:32:55 GMT -5
NIST's column 79 theory completely falls apart with its own free fall claim
NIST claimed that the collapse of WTC7 was initiated by the failure of a single column (79). However, a free fall cannot occur unless all the columns are taken out at the same time. So that means one single column failure could not result in the free fall collapse of WTC7 for 2.25 seconds even if NIST's column 79 theory was fact. Furthermore, the computer simulation animation of the collapse of WTC7, besides the fact it does not match the videos of the actual collapse, does not show a free fall collapse for any amount of time. The computer animation was a critical component that NIST used to try to support its column 79 theory.
So bottom line, by admitting a free fall, NIST contradicts its entire theory.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 12:18:09 GMT -5
Column 79 supported the penthouse whose collapse preceded the rest of the collapse of the building. Now think about everything below that the penthouse hit as it fell.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 12:33:19 GMT -5
"Column 79 supported the penthouse whose collapse preceded the rest of the collapse of the building."
All the evidence shows this is not only an unsupported NIST theory and that NIST contradicted itself but it's also impossible given the FACT that WTC7 collapsed in free fall for over 2 seconds. So why would you just repeat impossible nonsense given the FACTS?
"Now think about everything below that the penthouse hit as it fell."
Why do I need to think about that? Why don't you think about the EVIDENCE presented that NIST committed FRAUD? Thinking is not part of your toolset, you would rather keep up with the charade because you have another agenda, right?
And why would I want to just go along with a FRAUDULENT theory posed by NIST and vehemently supported by you? Give me one good reason if you can.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 10, 2013 7:24:22 GMT -5
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports – Part 2 of 5Quotes from the NIST WTC7 report are shown in " red" 2. MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSIONNIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.. NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS). "Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent." NCSTAR 1A p. 32 [pdf p. 74]
“…only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” NCSTAR 1A p. 36 [pdf p. 78] To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging. NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent. "The girder and beam temperatures were assumed to be 500 °C and 600 °C, respectively, and the slab was assumed to remain unheated."– NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 349 [pdf p. 393]
"Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively." NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 p.352 [pdf p. 396]
"The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103 °C. … When the beam temperatures had reached 300 °C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 352 [pdf p. 396]
"This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16 story ANSYS and 47 story LS-DYNA analyses." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 353 [pdf p. 397] In the NIST scenario, the collapse would have occurred at 4:00 p.m. NIST applied this arbitrarily increased temperature for 4 hours of heating, starting at noon. In their scenario, the damage and the collapse would have occurred at 4:00 p.m. "The choice of a 2 MW fire at 12:00 noon was a somewhat arbitrary initialization of the simulations, but there is little visual evidence of how the fires behaved in the time period between 10:28:22 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. … starting the calculations at noon was convenient in that the simulation time was the same as the actual clock time." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 377 [pdf p. 39]NIST assumes that it took an hour and a half for the fires, started by burning debris from WTC 1, - 350 feet away - to develop into a 2MW (megawatt) fire. "The building response is examined at 3.5 h and 4.0 h of heating. At 3.5 h, the floor systems had fire-induced damage and failures of some connections, beams, and girders. After 4.0 h of heating, there was substantially more damage and failures in the WTC 7 structural floor system, particularly in the northeast region surrounding Column 79. The structural condition at these two times illustrates how the structure developed sufficient fire-induced damage to reach the collapse initiation event." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 493 [pdf p. 155]
Building Response at 4.0 h
"On Floor 13 (Figure 11–35), all four of the north-south girders attached to Columns 79, 80, and 81 had failed, due to either buckling or girder walk off of the bearing seat at Columns 79 and 81." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 504 [pdf p. 166]
"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. … This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation." NCSTAR 1A p. 22 [pdf p. 64]NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 4.75 inches. "A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 527 [pdf p. 189]
"The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat." June 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports [use the link at the bottom of this post] As shown in the graph, structural steel sags as temperature rises, decreasing its length and negating the thermal expansion that NIST blames for the collapse of WTC 7 NIST ignored its own finding: "Temperatures were uniform (within 1°C) across the bottom flange and web, but the top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees because the slab acted as a heat sink." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 391 [pdf p. 53]
Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing. NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012, pursuant to a FOIA request. They can be downloaded here: WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscraper’s Destruction 9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79. NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle. “Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when … the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. … the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 488 [pdf p. 150]
The flange stiffeners are on the Frankel drawings, but not on the NIST drawings in the final report. NIST’s drawing of column 79 omits flange stiffeners that would have prevented the girder's failure Frankel’s original column drawings (above and below) show the 3/4” flange stiffeners in place www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/767-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2-of-5.html
|
|