Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on W

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final Report on W; Debunking NIST's August 21, 2008 Final R
Topic Started: Sep 14 2008, 02:37 AM (1,072 Views)
Miragememories	Nov 11 2008, 09:25 AM Post #26
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "Where did I ever say that NIST didn't have the plans? You are the one that distrusts the NIST completely. Clearly they would not have gotten too far without the building plans. And obviously these report comments are adequate proof for you that there WERE studs and that NIST then denied it. Sorry if it offends you that this is NOT adequate proof for ME." Grit1645 "Where are the PLANS* indicating that there were shear studs on this particular girder, and how many?"* Where are the PLANS? The NIST has them under lock and key. The NIST said shear studs for the core girders were not shown in all the design drawings. In 2004, the NIST unequivocally stated that most of the beams and [floor]girders did have sheer studs. What part of "most of" suggests to you a reasonable doubt that the critical floor girders were exempted? It's particularly telling when the NIST, with the original WTC7 design design drawings in hand, stated most of the floor girders had shear studs. From this very detailed and researched 2004 preliminary report containing a working collapse hypothesis which was not effected by the existence of floor girder shear studs, the NIST releases a 2008 final report which completely denies the existence of shear studs on the floor girders, and that denial just happens to fit perfectly with their new collapse hypothesis. I don't distrust the NIST completely. The majority of the NIST staff, I'm sure are honest, hard working people whose integrity is not in doubt. Of the hundreds of people associated with the actual investigation into the collapse of WTC7, only a few would be involved in the final document's critical wording. Those in the NIST administration overseeing this politically sensitive report, would have the final say in how the findings were presented and interpreted. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 11 2008, 10:08 AM Post #27
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	MM When I said "where are the PLANS" I was referring to YOUR lack of possession of them, not suggesting that NO ONE has them. I doubt that NIST has the only copy of the plans. The Port Authority probably still has one (or several), and the original architects, as well as the original structural engineering consultants. Hell, given the state of CAD in 1986, it's likely that some of it still exists as computer files somewhere out there. The fabricators may have the original shop drawings. What part of "most of" suggests to you that every floor girder is included? How do you think they "decided" to come up with this new collapse theory and to totally fabricate one out of whole cloth? And all those honest hard-working staffers whose integrity is not in doubt are what then, just idiots?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Nov 11 2008, 10:53 AM Post #28
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "When I said "where are the PLANS" I was referring to YOUR lack of possession of them, not suggesting that NO ONE has them." Engineers are expected to be more precise and careful with their language. Whether or not I had a copy of the plans was irrelevant to the discussion. Whether the NIST had a copy was relevant which is why I pursued that issue. You wasted a lot of words on this non-issue. Grit1645 "What part of "most of" suggests to you that every floor girder is included?" To quote the NIST; "Floors 8 through 45 had essentially the same framing plan." Looking at the critical column 79, I see 3 floor girders connected to it for each floor. It would take quite a few 'shear stud' exempted floor girders to support the NIST contention that their absence was a critical factor in the failure of column 79. The NIST used the wording "most of" and not "some of" for very good reason, it was accurate. Why would the NIST change their report from "most of the floor beams and girders" to just "most of the floor beams" without disclosing the reason for this major factual change? No appendix entry, nada. They had the plans in 2004 which indicated most of the floor girders had shear studs, yet in 2008 they chose to re-interpret those same plans and state none of the floor girders had shear studs. MM
Posts: 752 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Nov 11 2008, 11:13 AM Post #29
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Nov 11 2008, 10:53 AM Looking at the critical column 79, I see 3 floor girders connected to it for each floor. It would take quite a few 'shear stud' exempted floor girders to support the NIST contention that their absence was a critical factor in the failure of column 79. The NIST used the wording "most of" and not "some of" for very good reason, it was accurate. Why would the NIST change their report from "most of the floor beams and girders" to just "most of the floor beams" without disclosing the reason for this major factual change? No appendix entry, nada. They had the plans in 2004 which indicated most of the floor girders had shear studs, yet in 2008 they chose to re-interpret those same plans and state none of the floor girders had shear studs. MM Obviously you are onto a critical discovery. Maybe you can get someone in authority to look at this conclusive evidence and finally start an investigation. Good luck.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


SPreston	Nov 11 2008, 08:59 PM Post #30
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Chris Sarns Nov 10 2008, 11:48 PM Grit1645 Denial means never having to admit the government lies. You will not believe any evidence that NIST is lying until you hear it from Bill O'Riley. Grit1645 Obviously you are onto a critical discovery. Maybe you can get someone in authority to look at this conclusive evidence and finally start an investigation. Good luck. Grit do you ever pause, take a step back, and really take a good look at yourself, and realize just how much of a hypocrite you usually are? Edited by SPreston, Nov 11 2008, 09:05 PM.



SPreston	Nov 11 2008, 09:15 PM Post #31
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Grit1645 Nov 10 2008, 09:12 PM Miragememories Nov 10 2008, 06:09 PM The NIST WTC7 Final Collapse Report makes frequent reference to the WTC7 Design Plans, so you have to assume the NIST is trapped in a foolish lie, or they actually have the plans as they claim. I accept they have the plans but Grit1645, you are welcome to distrust the NIST all you want. In 2004, the NIST unequivocally stated most of the beams and [floor]girders had sheer studs. The only other comment was specifically about many of the core girders which the NIST indicated did not show shear studs in the design drawings. This is a really important, because the NIST placed special importance on the existence, or lack of, those shear studs. The NIST, without explanation, removed "and girders" when they re-issued the original statement; "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." in 2008. Well I contend that the real reason lies in their closing statements; From NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment "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." "Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: (4) shear studs that could fail due to differential thermal expansion in composite floor systems, and (5) lack of shear studs on girders." I believe the argument for non-core girders having shear studs has not been contradicted. MM Where did I ever say that NIST didn't have the plans? You are the one that distrusts the NIST completely. Clearly they would not have gotten too far without the building plans. And obviously these report comments are adequate proof for you that there WERE studs and that NIST then denied it. Sorry if it offends you that this is NOT adequate proof for ME. It is blatantly obvious that NIST has deliberately LIED in their 2008 report Grit. So why do you still desperately support and defend them? You claim to be an engineer. Doesn't deliberate lying by the National Institute of Standards and Technology scientists offend you professionally at all?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2