|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 7, 2013 23:27:36 GMT -5
Note: the following video is more than 7 years old. Much more evidence has been discovered since and as well the NIST Final Report on WTC7 was published 2 years after the video.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 20, 2013 8:16:29 GMT -5
"the following video is more than 7 years old. Much more evidence has been discovered since and as well the NIST Final Report on WTC7 was published 2 years after the video."
And here's some of the evidence:
The structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report are court room level evidence that the report is at the very least in error and non-explanatory.
These omissions were not possible to find until the drawings were released in 2012, due to an FOIA by structural engineer Ron Brookman. This is the same guy that was told "it might jeopardize public safety" as an excuse to refuse his request for analysis and calculations supporting the girder walk-off claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.
If the omitted features are included in the analysis there is no possible girder walk-off, no possible column buckling, and no possible natural collapse in accordance with the NIST theory. This means a new investigation is legitimately warranted and is not due to just conjecture and speculation.
What I mean by omitted features are the flange to web stiffeners on the girder at the column 79 side and the three beam stubs framing into the northmost beam from the north exterior frame. The NIST WTC 7 report actually claims two potential failure modes to move the girder off its seats.
1. The girder is pushed off its seat at column 79 laterally from east to west by beam expansion.
2. The northmost beam buckles, after pushing against the girder end that cannot translate due to it being between the flanges of column 44, causing the other beams to buckle and rocking the girder off its seats by pulling it back to the east.
The stiffeners prevent the girder from ever walking off the seat at column 79, as the beams can't expand more than 50% of the nearly 10 inches needed with the stiffeners allowing the girder to still carry its load and preventing the flange from folding if the web is not over the seat. In the second case, the lateral support of the beam stubs keeps the northmost beam from being slender and buckling, while also allowing it to deflect the girder to the west, while the girder is restrained by the other beams and putting them in tension, precluding any possibility of them buckling. I have done FEA on both of these situations proving the omitted features prevent failure.
The above is also so strong it makes the shear stud issue irrelevant, as these omitted features will prevent the girder from moving off its seats by a significant margin even if there were no shear studs on any of the structural members.
- Tony Szamboti - A mechanical design engineer with 27 years of experience in the aerospace and communications industries.
|
|