9/11 Blogger FRAUD: November 2013

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Another fake lawsuit by New Jersey 911 Aware's David Meiswinkle

Don't they call those "lol" suits?

Maybe it's not a lawsuit, but it is an officially, legally, actiony sorta think a scammer will do to pull in more marks, posted by "Joe":

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-19/breaking-news-november-1-2013-complaint-was-filed-new-jersey-state-commission-investigation
*******************************************************

Breaking news: On November 1, 2013, a complaint was filed with the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation

Posted by Joe on Tue, 11/19/2013 - 7:05pm

.
http://nj911aware.org/
Breaking news:
On November 1, 2013, a complaint was filed with the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation
David R. Meiswinkle, President, and Founder of New Jersey 911 Aware, met with a state Investigator to review the complaint.
GO TO: http://nj911aware.org/ for a PDF of the complaint

NJ911Aware-DavidinfromntofNJStateCapital
President of New Jersey 9/11 Aware, David Meiswinkle, in front of the NJ State Capital Building, preparing to file for a new 9/11 investigation with the NJ State Committee of Investigation (SCI)

[VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd5xpl3zxq4 ]
[Video text:

Published on Nov 19, 2013
David Meiswinkle is a criminal defense attorney, a retired New Brunswick police officer, and a former reporter. While a police officer, he was the major political opposition to the powerful Senator John Lynch machine in Middlesex County, and ran for mayor against Lynch in New Brunswick. David was the founder of the New Brunswick Taxpayers and Tenants Association and also of the New Brunswick Reporter, a local newspaper. He is now the founder and president of New Jersey 9/11 Aware-- a group fighting to establish a new 9/11 investigation within the state of New Jersey. In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall he talks about New Jersey 9/11 Aware's efforts and the complaint that he recently filed with the the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation.

http://nj911aware.org/ ]

9/11 Free Fall 11/14/13: David Meiswinkle-- New Jersey 9/11 Aware
Free Fall Free Fall·81 videos
17 views
Like 3 Dislike 0
Published on Nov 19, 2013
David Meiswinkle is a criminal defense attorney, a retired New Brunswick police officer, and a former reporter. While a police officer, he was the major political opposition to the powerful Senator John Lynch machine in Middlesex County, and ran for mayor against Lynch in New Brunswick. David was the founder of the New Brunswick Taxpayers and Tenants Association and also of the New Brunswick Reporter, a local newspaper. He is now the founder and president of New Jersey 9/11 Aware-- a group fighting to establish a new 9/11 investigation within the state of New Jersey. In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall he talks about New Jersey 9/11 Aware's efforts and the complaint that he recently filed with the the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation.
http://nj911aware.org/
Read the complaint here: http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnj911aware.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FNJ911AwareLEGALDOCUMENT...

**************************************************************

The complaint can be downloaded here:
http://nj911aware.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NJ911AwareLEGALDOCUMENTSCIFINAL.pdf

or read in cache here:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?biw=1235&bih=546&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Anj911aware.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FNJ911AwareLEGALDOCUMENTSCIFINAL.pdf&oq=cache%3Anj911aware.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FNJ911AwareLEGALDOCUMENTSCIFINAL.pdf&gs_l=hp.12...8658.9651.1.11052.6.6.0.0.0.1.127.495.3j2.5.0....1...1c.1.32.psy-ab..7.0.0.PzCWLA-o16c&pbx=1

But who is David Meiswinkle? He doesn't have a wiki page, but seems to be a minor politician from New Jersey associated with the :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=David+Meiswinkle&button=&title=Special%3ASearch
In 2009 he had a website called http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com/

WELCOME!

As a soldier in the U.S. military and as a police officer for 23 years, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, even with my life if necessary. Today, as an attorney, I continue the work of protecting people’s Constitutional rights.
Our Founding Fathers fervently believed that government should serve the needs of the people. But in New Jersey, we have been betrayed by self-serving politicians and powerful commercial interests.
New Jersey tax rates on property, sales, and personal income are among the highest in the Nation, if not the highest. This situation is intolerable.
As your Governor, I will vigilantly defend our rights. I seek to empower the middle class and protect our standard of living. I will reduce the tax burden on hard-working citizens; and we will regain the public’s control of government by implementing the following programs: (click on the links for more information).

Promoting Direct Democracy through Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

Enforcing Honest Government

Job Creation and Protecting Small Businesses in New Jersey

CONNECT

Follow our campaign on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/David-R-Meiswinkle/112994211704?ref=mf

The Latest...

Copyright © 2009 Meiswinkle for Governor

The "issues" has 911 "truth" right at the top:
http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com/pages/on_the_issues/index.shtml

On The Issues

We will regain the public’s control of government by: (click on the links for more information)

About 9/11 with press release:

New 911 Commission

CALL FOR A NEW 911 HEARING

     There is no statute of limitation for homicide. On September 11, 2001 almost 3,000 American were murdered. 679 of them were citizens of New Jersey. The Twin Towers were owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Two of the air planes flew out of the Newark, New Jersey air port. The anthrax attacks were in Hamilton, New Jersey. New Jersey has a significant nexus to this event.

The Bush administration was big to move off the internal matter of investigating. Chris Christie, the then new United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey did nothing. Instead of an investigation, the citizens received the Patriot Act, as if they did something wrong, which curtailed freedoms in a world that was seemingly becoming scarier to live in. 19 terrorist were identified within two days, as the alleged suspects, but there has been no prove forthcoming to establish that fact. 9 of these alleged assassins and hijackers are presently alive and well it has been reported; so they were not in the doomed air planes. If not them, then who.

     Without a doubt, what happened was sensational, horrific to the nth degree. The event struck the Nation’s psyche to the core. America’s soul was pierced and bled. There was mental damage. The country was traumatized and in shock. It was vulnerable; and could easily be taken advantage of by being repositioned and redirected.

     Now, there will be folks yelling that things are all right, don’t revisit what has been settled; don’t stir things up now that they have quieted down; don’t espouse conspiracy theory etc.

     My response is this: Let us learn the facts. Because if you desire to know the facts as best they can be ascertained you will not doubt the need for a new investigation. You will demand it. America was attacked at its inner core. Those who are responsible for that crime are enemies of each one of us. We should do all that we can to bring light on the matter and allow truth to prevail.; no matter how painful it may be to review the events once more…and no matter how upsetting it may be to follow the evidence back to the source from where it originated. That means doing an investigation that is objective, thorough and complete. Our former Governor and co-chairman of the 911 Commission, Tom Kean, himself stated that the investigation was set up to fail, as it was under funded and had no subpoena power.

    If elected, I will give the New Commission some muscle.

   Today we are fighting two Wars in the Middle East because of 911. There is oil and the biggest supply of world opium,… but there are no weapons of mass destruction.



     Let us look at 911 closer this time, second time through. There are a myriad of happenings that need to be explained that were not. There are so many statements contrary to the “official story”… which could lead one to a view that certain factions of government have not been forthright with its citizens…and even worse……

David Meiswinkle for Governor
Noelani Musicaro for Lt. Governor
http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com 1-877-376-4468
Contact: Michael Cote
Phone: (732) 846-7029

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
David Meiswinkle is an attorney, retired police officer, and U.S. Army veteran. He is an independent candidate for Governor running on the Middle Class Empowerment ticket with Noelani Musicaro, candidate for Lt. Governor.
For more information, contact Michael Cote at (732) 846-7029
Or visit: http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com/

September 4, 2009

Meiswinkle Calls for New 9/11 Commission

Independent candidate for New Jersey Governor, David Meiswinkle has called for the creation of a new commission to investigate the circumstances involving the September 11, 2001 catastrophe.
“Nearly 700 New Jersey residents died on that awful day, and an unknown number have since died or grown ill from exposure to contamination at the World Trade Center. These people and their families deserve the truth,” said Meiswinkle, who is running on the Middle Class Empowerment slate with Noelani Musicaro for Lt. Governor.
Citing the failures of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, Meiswinkle said, “We need a well-financed, professionally staffed, fully independent and objective commission with all the necessary resources and subpoena power to get at the truth.
“It’s no secret that the Bush administration opposed the first 9/11 Commission, then they underfunded it, and then they placed an unreasonable 3-month deadline to complete its task. Even its co-chairs, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said the original commission was ‘set up for failure’.”
“We need a new commission with the muscle and determination to get the job done right.”
The 9/11 Commission completed its work and released a report in August 2004. The report concluded that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented and issued lengthy recommendations for institutional change. The commission and its conclusions have come under extensive criticism, even from its own commissioners.
Meiswinkle, who is an attorney and a retired 23-year police officer, has accused the Bush administration of actively trying to cover up the events leading to the 9/11 disaster.
“This is the greatest failure to defend our country from attack in our nation’s history. There were many warnings but they were not heeded. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield had every reason to cover up their failures. The original 9/11 commissioners believed that the CIA, Pentagon, FAA, and NORAD representatives were deliberately deceiving them. They even wanted to refer criminal prosecution to the justice department.”
In August 2006, Kean and Hamilton published a book titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. In it, they stated that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by government officials that they considered referring obstruction of justice charges to the Justice Department.
Meiswinkle believes issues concerning the 9/11 investigation have a direct bearing on the campaign for New Jersey governor. “Chris Christie is basing his campaign as a corruption fighter. But recent revelations about Christie’s political ties to Karl Rove and the White House raises suspicion as to why he was chosen to be U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
“The collusion extends to the selection of Christopher Christie as the top Justice Department official for the state,” Meiswinkle asserted. “Bush nominated Christie for the position only three months after 9/11. Yet, Christie never bothered to use the powers of his federal office to investigate the greatest crime in history. He betrayed New Jerseyans who died in that holocaust.
“Christie got his nomination solely because he was the biggest New Jersey fund raiser for Bush — he had no criminal law expertise. Christie’s previous experience was as a lobbyist, County Freeholder, and an attorney. Clearly, Christie was put in place as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey as a political favor and to squash any federal investigation of 9/11.”
If elected, Meiswinkle would empower a new 9/11 commission headed by the New Jersey Attorney General and would call upon President Obama to compel the Justice Department to investigate charges presented by the original 9/11 commission.

It doesn't sound completely insane and that's what sucks in folks. His honest government platform has some flags though:

http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com/pages/on_the_issues/Honest_Government/index.shtml

There is but one special interest that I am concerned with and will champion…and that is the Public Good. Government should exist for the Public Good; not the good of the political bosses and their cronies, or the special interests and their sponsors.
It is obscene to hear a superintendent of schools retiring with full pension and medical benefits and carrying with them hundreds of thousands of additional dollars. It is not a question of them getting the earned benefits, it just appears, however, that greed and unaccountability allow this situation to get out of control, and the bill to the tax payers to be inflated unnecessarily.

Nowhere does he compare pensions of this theoretical superintendent to say the pension of a corporate CEO. That would be awkward. It may appear to him this pension is a sign of greed. It appears to this reader his example smacks of rightly Libertarian whining and a general ignorance of how pensions work. His screed on job creation contains another flag: bankers:

http://www.meiswinkle4governor.com/pages/on_the_issues/Job_Creation/index.shtml

Now, after bailing Wall Street out and others, generating more debt and obligations to the Wall Street Bankers, who created the economic problems,....

By itself it doesn't mean anything. Wall Street has behaved irresponsibly. But the phrase "bankers" used in this context can be a code word among the right for dem pesky Jews. He continues on to his thoughts on NAFTA and lauding Ross Perot , as if Perot were the only one critical of NAFTA:

The North American Free Trade Agreement was approved by Congress in 1994 on an expedited manner before the legislation was even read by many congressmen. This trade agreement and others has been a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States and the standard of living of the middle class.
Independent Presidential candidate Ross Perot accurately predicted the whooshing sound of countless jobs being sucked out of our country when the debate over these treaties was conducted.

This make me suspicious enough of Davey agenda to do what I can short cut searches:

DM + Ron Paul
And, by gum, on his current website he's in awe of Paul while he writes a Teabagger friendly political screed:
http://meiswinkleforcongress.com/2010/08/where-elephants-and-donkeys-rule-bedlam-will-ensue/
"There are a few true jewels like Ron Paul, and the late Henry Gonzalez."

The tags are littered with Federal reserve bank and other libertard conspiracy crap. But on result reveals DM is a contact for the nonprofit fraud now known as AE 911truth:
http://www.meetup.com/The-Middlesex-and-MonmouthLibertyMeetup/messages/47781532/

Don’t hold back! It only takes one “awakened” police chief to start the ball rolling toward a real 9/11 investigation.

Send your physical mailing address today to me:

Pamela Senzee
[address removed]

Your local NJ State AE911Truth Project Leader is:

David Meiswinkle
Attorney at Law
AE911Truth
[address removed]

Well, that meant a search for DM + ae911truth was in order, and sure enough he's plugged at AE911Truth on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10151686738761269

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth · 188,300 like this.

14 November at 16:21 ·

Tonight at 10PM EST/ 7PM PST: Criminal defense attorney David Meiswinkle talks about his push for a new 9/11 investigation in New Jersey
http://noliesradio.org/

Not a surprise. The incestuous conspiracy scammers are rapidly running out of front to hide behind. There were never very many to begin with. Having lost their legion of marks from 2006, they're forced to cover each other. With revealing results: Meiswinkle is being plugged at this website:

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2013/11/20/911-free-fall-111413-david-meiswinkle-new-jersey-911-aware/

That flirts with Holocaust denial subjects:
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2013/11/20/ahmadinejad-has-denied-the-holocaust-do-you-support-the-denial-of-the-holocaust-as-well/
And convicted right wing extremist bombers:
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2013/11/25/who-is-the-illuminati-with-fritz-springmeier-and-bob-tuskin/

Hmmm. Who the hell is Bob Tuskin? A conspiracy clown that has some awareness he's in deep anti Jew doo doo by posting this meta thread:
:
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/08/31/adl-911-anti-semitic-theories-alive-and-well/

The comments are the usual mix of veiled anti-semitisim and wacka shill accusations. More to the point we can see Bobby having a nice chat with a profession purveyor of anti-semite conspiracy lunacy, Jim Fetzer: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/02/bob-tuskin-jim-viken.html

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Bob Tuskin / Jim Viken

Cordial conversation and serious stuff
Posted by Total at 9:48 PM

Comments are revealing:

Reply

Jim ButterfieldFebruary 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Over the last several broadcasts Jim Fetzer has become extremely anti-Semitic. This has become very disconcerting. I would expect more from a professional scholar and academician. I am very disappointed.
Reply

Replies

Jim FetzerMarch 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM

No. Raising questions about the reality (or true dimensions) of the Holocaust is not being "anti-Semitic" any more that noting the role of Israel in the atrocities of 9/11.

I have written about this in the latter case. See, "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?", to which the answer is also, "No". Check it out.

Aral SeaMarch 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I don't think Jim is Anti-Semitic. But he has been getting a lot of influence from people like John Friend. If you listen to this broadcast.

http://www.john-friend.net/2013/02/the-realist-report-with-john-friend_18.html

John's guest advocates all non-white races to be separated out and deported of the United States (except for a nation of blacks [in a separate region of the US] for some reason).

John F. admits he doesn't necessarily agree with that stance.

So John F. doesn't believe in the "Hollywood holocaust" and believes the Jews a separate race.

I believe Jim is influenced by Holocaust revisionism but not anti-semitism.

"I believe Jim is influenced by Holocaust revisionism but not anti-Semitism". Holocaust denial IS antisemitism. What a moron.

So the question is: why does Bob Tuskin, who runs a website that promotes retired bombers and makes excuses for Holocaust deniers, interested in promoting David Meiswinkle's 911 truth campaign?

We've been down this road before and their are only two probably answers:

1:Meiswinkle is yet another well meaning but gullible fool being assimilating into the "Truther" teabagger/militia front

2: Meiswinkle is yet another scammer trying to rally the radical racist right under a fair sounding Libertarian and "truther" propaganda.

Odds are the first probability is not correct...

Update Nov 28th : blog has disappeared from 911blogger. The link returns "access denied".

Now why would that be? Could it be that, Meiswinkle, being a contact for AE911Truth, and Justin Keogh and Teddy Tilton being involved with AE911Truth, feel that would be even too incestuous for their little gang? Or did they learn how obviously he's connected to creeps on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/david.meiswinkle

Being friends with both Richard "Conman" Gage and Les "Larouchie Loving" Jamieson"?

Les is even plugging Rethink911.org:

Then there's Lance linking Meiswinkle to a list of conspiracy clowns, including Fetzer:
https://www.facebook.com/lance.ciepiela/posts/10201055584853636

Lance Ciepiela via Frank Agamemnon

27 November at 13:29 ·

The Usual Suspects - these three people. The president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. December Surprise/September Surprise - Barbara Honegger David R. Meiswinkle Luke Rudkowski Pamela Senzee Kevin Barrett James Henry Fetzer Marc Starcke Marco Antonio Solis Dan Bland Ed Rynearson Marco Antonio Solis Castillo #911JUSTICE #TruthBeTold #endthesilence #facts Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth World for 9/11 Truth Exposing The Truth Christians for 9/11 Truth Firefighters For 9-11 Truth | truthaholics TN Truther Law Enforcement For 9/11 Truth Frank Agamemnon David Slesinger David Jeremiah David Chandler
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-The-New-Pearl-Harbor-by-Lance-Ciepiela-911-Truth_Evidence_Film-Reviews_Pearl-Harbor-131027-311.html#comment457116

[Again, it's possible some of these people are duped...well, one of these people. Basically I believe Luke Rudowski was a victim of a sophisticated con, that reinforced "they" are after him because of 911 truth. It helped that it appears his only social support system is the Alex Jones inspired patriot crowd. If Luke is reading: remember there are no agents. The enemy is right next to you, playing you off from one con to another. Sorry.]

Just one big incestuous conspiracy family.....

Update Nov 30: Strange rumor that this article was submitted by Andrew Steele. He does have a user account at 911blogger: 911blogger.com/blogs/andrew-steele

But he didn't submit the David Meiswinkle blog. That was user "Joe":
http://911blogger.com/users/joe

as this screencapture shows:

Where peeps get their info...

Thursday, November 14, 2013

911blogger mods and Kawika dig hole deeper

EDIT: strong objections arise in comments, asserting "kawika" is not Larry Mcwilliams, despite Phil Jayhan indicating he is at "Let's Roll", with no objection from "kawika". Further research seems to indicate "kawika" is David Cole and Phil Jayhan made a typo, misplacing the comma:

Between Dave Cole, (kawika) Larry McWilliams

It's still odd "kawika" didn't object.

He was active on the Let's Roll board as recently as July 2013. "Kawika" was active at "Let's Roll" and 911blogger for years, something one commenter seems uncomfortable with. That brings us back to the point of this post: it doesn't matter if he's really Mickey Mouse. The fact is he's running a scam with the 911blogger admins and readers, while for years moonlighting at Let's Roll, a board that takes extreme conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook and fake "vicsims" seriously.

Also of note is that Jayhan has not commented on Kawika's 911blogger presence. These are the people who will accuse random passers-by as "shills" and "agents" on the slightest provocation. Jayhan is displaying unprecedented restraint....The fact is these are all con men.
EDIT ENDS   Dec 27th



If it wasn't bad enough the website owners were caught trying to trick NIST and fool readers(potential site donors):
http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/kawika-nist-thread-from-google-cache.html

kawika compounds this by starting a thread, approved by the mods, calling attention to the retconned thread:

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry

This thread is also retconed, having been published originally on November 6th, not Nov 11th:

http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/cache-of-911blogger-mods-and-kawika.html

Again he laughably links back to the retconned thread, original date still recorded in the url as Sept 24th. Given the date kawika posts the responding email is Oct 19th, and kawika hadn't seen fit to update his 60 days no response thread, the possible motive for this convoluted fraud presents itself:

Knowledge that NIST had responded was about to leak to all the little dupes being fleeced at 911blogger.

That is just a theory.

Another discrepancy: Kawika claims it is his inquiry. The NIST letters address a David Cole. kawika however is not David Cole, though they are friends. kawika is Larry McWilliams, of the Letsroll911 website run by Phil Jayhan:
http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html

Between Dave Cole, (kawika) Larry McWilliams and myself, we have spent hundreds of hours studying this occupancy FOIA request over the last 6 months or so, and we haven't even scratched the surface yet. We would like to request that all of you as a group take lots of time studying this so that collectively we miss nothing. This FOIA is a goldmine. It's the gift that keeps on giving, a mine that never runs dry. We believe that we have given you an accurate overview of the material so that you will know and be able to scour the spreadsheet as we did and know how to spot things. We need all of your help.

To say that there were occupancy issues is a gross understatement. The official story seems more then just a little bit hollow.

Cheers-
Phil Jayhan, Dave Cole & Larry McWilliams

And then these new comments are dated Nov 7th, which is a clue to the real November 6th publication date.

The Text of http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/nist-replies-stiffeners-inquiry
.....................................................................................

NIST Replies to Stiffeners Inquiry

Posted by kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 12:55am

I am pleased to offer the following email from Public Affairs Officer Michael Newman, dated 25 OCT 2013. The inquiry actually began in March 2012 immediately following our discovery of the stiffeners on girder A2001. Despite what the answer says, I made my inquiry on 26 JUL 2013 and followed up on 24 SEP. No reply was received so I sent a final letter on 19 OCT.
Background on this inquiry can be found here:
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply
************************************************************************************
From: michael.newman@nist.gov
CC: wtc@nist.gov
Subject: RE: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:55:28 +0000
Dear Mr. Cole,
Following your e-mail of September 24 (see below), a set of responses to your questions were prepared. Unfortunately, the partial shutdown of the federal government delayed our getting these responses to you. With our apologies for tardiness, here are those responses:
A) In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create:
Figure 8-21?.................1091, 9114
Figure 8-23?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-26?.................1091, 3004, 9114
Figure 8-27?.................E12-13
Figure 11-16?...............E12-13, E120
Figure 11-19?...............None
Figure 12-24?..............1091, 9114
Figure 12-25?..............1091, 9114, E12-13
B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?
The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.
Again, we apologize for the length of time it took to get this information back to you.
Thank you for your interest in the NIST World Trade Center investigation.
Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs Office

Login to post comments
6 votes

Good Work, Kawika

I'm confused. Here's a search result for "web crippling":
http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM13/BGSCM008/Misc/BGSCM008050...
From the drawing it is clear that these stiffener plates would clearly resist this "web crippling" from occurring at this location. But how in God's name would these same stiffeners NOT ALSO prevent girder walk-off? A lie of omission?

AConfederacyofDunces on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 1:59pm.

Login to post comments
5 votes

Crippling Analysis

How did they determine there was no web crippling? By analysis?
If you did an analysis and purposely left off the plates, then you would surely see flange failure, not web crippling.
This is very strange logic.

kawika on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 2:04pm.

Login to post comments
4 votes

Yes

Just feels like double-talk.

AConfederacyofDunces on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 2:10pm.

Login to post comments
4 votes

Well, njes, njes, but...

A more technically correct term is "evasion", but engineers may have their own term that better fits the bill, or perhaps they prefer the colloquial term commonly represented by the letters "bs"?
At minimum it is a good thing to have the admission on record that the plates where omitted, and also having gotten a glimpse at the kind of tricks NIST will try in court.
How much of a bother would it be to do our own computer model of the supposed failure zone - not the whole building - with all the omissions included and all the distortions corrected? Would this not be the kind of evidence that stops the show?

Simon001 on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 5:41pm.

Login to post comments
1 vote

Technically, NIST's statement is true, but it's a red herring

Clearly the only reason to use the stiffeners was to resist web crippling, which is what happens when a load is too concentrated.
There's a good explanation of the phenomenon here: http://gfestructures.wordpress.com/2013/01/
NIST is using web crippling as a red herring to disguise the fact that those same stiffeners would have resisted the curling of the lower flange as the girder reached the outer limit of its walk-off.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong:
1) I believe that NIST claims that the thermal expansion of the beams was sufficient to push the girder off even if there was a stiffener plate.
2) I believe Mr. Szamboti and Mr. Sarns have done calcs to show that the actual thermal expansion of the beam was not sufficient to push it that far.
3) I believe Mr. Brookman asked NIST for their thermal expansion calcs and was refused on public safety grounds.

Ace Acme on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 5:32pm.

Login to post comments
0 votes

A glimpse of the kinds of tricks yes...

Oh yes, NIST's response was delayed (for a number of months) and they apologize for it, how nice & decent.
So, they respond by writing a mere three short sentences to wrap it all up; the stiffeners were not included because their function is to prevent web crippling failures, which the structural analysis of WTC7 did not show. Satisfied now?
I also liked the "Thank you for your interest in the NIST World Trade Center investigation.".
Can I ask, what kind of response did anyone expect from NIST regarding this crucial issue? Again, they obviously believe they can get away with this kind of response. For me, it's the audacity, the nerve to think they can get away with answers like this, that worries and frustrates me (and quite frankly infuriates me if I'm honest).
I wonder now, what's next? Is mr. Cole going to write them again and ask if the stiffeners, which were omitted, maybe, just maybe, would have prevented the girder walking off its seat? Or ask them if they can verify that, had the stiffeners been included, the outcome would still have been the same (which is what they claim if I read their response correctly)? And how long will we have to wait for a response on that?

Sandberg on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 8:43am.

Login to post comments
1 vote

Open Opportunity

There is an open opportunity for anyone wishing to contact NIST and gather a few more answers. There is no reason it has to be just one or two individuals.
When it gets to be a blizzard of inquiries, they may take steps to run the analyses again and report back what was learned once the critical structural elements are included.
The interesting thing is the draft report in Aug 2008 underwent a limited, informal peer review. Here is a link to the comments received.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/combined2008publicComm...
Pay particular attention to PDF page 9.
If NIST did not address the many concerns of this organization, then you can imagine what kind of evidence you will have to present to get their attention. The stiffeners and beam stubs fit that evidence set.

kawika on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:46pm.

Login to post comments
1 vote

CTBUH

Yes, NIST have no excuse for not taking these guys seriously. They seem to have been right onto the fact that there should have been additional elements in and around this connection, and presumably they cam to this conclusion without having the drawings to refer to. Very telling that NIST have apparently been ignoring this issue since October 2008. No response as yet from the CTBUH on what, if anything NIST had to say in reply to the very pertinent points that they raise.

gerrycan1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:51pm.

Login to post comments
0 votes

NIST

Thus far, NIST has gotten away with withholding their model data inputs by pleading that doing so would...
"JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY".
Based on this ludicrous statement we should not expect anything reasonable from NIST's official responses.
I only wish an Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake or Sibel Edmonds had done a stint at NIST.
I commend your work.

AConfederacyofDunces on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 1:40pm.

Login to post comments
5 votes

NIST's bogus response points to a greater underlying problem

I am not an architect, but one doesn't have to be one to see that NIST's response is clearly unscientific and untransparent. (ie BS)
The other question here - and this is not to decry the greater proportion of the workforce at NIST who do honest work: "Is it realistic to expect NIST, a federal agency (within the US Department of Commerce) to come to an official conclusion regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC#7 that points away from, or implies a different scenario from what we have been "informed" by other agencies and persons within the US Government?
If that is indeed the case, and government agencies (in this case NIST) are complicit in protecting rogue elements ie criminals, terrorists, mass murderers and traitors within our own power structure, then we have the makings of a failed state on our hands. What means are at the disposal of we the people to rectify that?

bloggulator on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 3:51pm.

Login to post comments
2 votes

the top 10 connections..

You make a good point.
The 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST have all put a thick coat of "whitewash" on all the reports so far, so it is fair to question their motives, and the general ability of any federal identity to produce honest and unbiased investigations.
This is very apparent from another angle, which is to consider the "inside-job" option which entails controlled demolition and nanothermite, since we know that leads to prominent federal labs(cited in Harrit´s nanothermite paper) and even NIST according to Kevin Ryan´s article about the NISTical connections to nanothermite development.
I am pretty sure many here have followed the "investigation" into the officially acknowledged fact that the Anthrax attack was an inside-job, so we do have a precedent for how efficient federal-grade whitewash really is, and perhaps even the mold for how the "lone nut" explanation for made-in-the-USA nanothermite would play out.

Simon001 on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 5:23pm.

Login to post comments
0 votes

Re: the top 10 connections..

It's unlikely that there was any nanothermite involved in the destruction of the WTC. I'm very familiar with the nanothermite topic, having spent many hours studying what is known about it from info provided by all parties involved. Let's be careful to put forward only issues which we can verify to be correct and true. That NIST left out the stiffener plates from their analysis, and that this renders their analytical methodology to be improper and their conclusions thus invalidated (or dubious at best), is verified and correct.

Wildbear on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 1:58am.

Login to post comments
5 votes

verified?

First of all, it does not matter what you think personally. No matter the final conclusion, any new investigation into the collapses of the WTC buildings will have to examine the nanothermite evidence put forth by AE9/11 - which brings me to my original point: Since this investigation leads to nanothermite, any federal or governmental investigations are compromised because "the government" developed nanothermite and therefore there is an extreme conflict of interest. This fact should prevent more NIST reports on WTC7 assuming we nullify the old report in court, and help us get a proper independent investigation.
Secondly, I don´t know how you came to your conclusion, but the "issues" we put forward are in the form of documented evidence: published papers, eye-witness testimony, testimony from experts, etc - pretty much the AE9/11 evidence brochure, and this includes a lot of evidence for nanothermite. Real skeptics will respond with papers that attempt to refute or better explain our evidence, and this is how the debate proceeds until some theory is finally officially "verified". Given dust full of iron spheres, extreme temperatures data, and molten metal flowing like lava, the thermite hypothesis is very strong. And especially with Harrit´s paper, the nanothermite hypothesis is still the best explanation of the data.

Simon001 on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 12:09pm.

Login to post comments
-3 votes

Re: verified?

Themite? Possibly. Nanothermite? No reliable evidence for it.
Neither should be presented in a court case against NIST. Just one allegation determined to be false could get the case thrown out of court. It will be difficult enough to get a court to consider the matter of NIST's modeling indiscretions without introducing dubious hypotheses into the case.
If AE9/11 is pushing the nanothermite hypothesis, then AE9/11 is on the wrong track, imho.

Wildbear on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 11:55pm.

Login to post comments
3 votes

You are missing the point

See my response to gerrycan1 below. The point is that no labs with connections to the government can handle the NEW investigation because nanothermite is a suspect, and there is already documented examples of previous investigations ignoring evidence that suggests thermite-type materials.
And again, you personal opinion about what is and is not the real culprit is irrelevant. You are using the same kind non-reasoning as NIST used as an excuse not to investigate the steel and dust and look for nanothermite evidence.
Finally since you provide nothing to back up your claim of "no reliable evidence" for nanothermite, I am forced to dismiss it. No-one has challenged a single point in Harrit´s paper or provided a better explanation for dust full of spheres, and both AE9/11 and Consensus911 support Harrit. Why do you think the JREF loud-mouths backed away from having the Millette Debunking Paper published? Hmmm?

Simon001 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:44pm.

Login to post comments
3 votes

Re: the top 10 connections..

I am not so sure whether thermitic material was or wasn't used in the case of WTC7. Where I do agree with you wholeheartedly is that we need to draw a clear distinction between evidence that is relevant to what did and what did not happen. For now, it is important to attack the official story that we were given by NIST, and confine ourselves to attacking the issue of what DIDN'T happen, rather than speculate about what did. The onus is not on us to provide an explanation for how the building collapsed, it is clearly on NIST. It may be that further down the road the issue of what was used to bring WTC7 down becomes pertinent, but at this stage I believe that we need to focus on the holes in NISTs story, and not get ahead of ourselves by introducing speculative claims into the mix that could allow the route to resolution of this issue to be prolonged. So, whilst I would not cast aside the thermitic material paper entirely, I agree with you that it would not be a useful thing to introduce at this point. Let's rather stick to that which we have in black and white and can prove without getting into debates that could surely only serve to allow the issue to become more protracted.

gerrycan1 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:29am.

Login to post comments
1 vote

I agree about focusing..

Yes, at this stage we should focus on "what did not happen" and essentially begin by hauling NIST´s behind to court for the fraudulent WTC7 report.
Determining what happened is far down the road, perhaps a few years, and most likely in the venue of academic papers before returning to court. I am not even sure that we will have to go to court to officially validate controlled demolition, reviewed papers should be enough. Establishing who planned and "did it" is another matter that is even further down the road and that is something that will hopefully end up in court.
However, returning to my original point, once we have nullified the WTC7 report, there will be a point where someone(perhaps the judge) appoints someone to handle the new investigation of 7´s demise, and at that point this someone will have to know of the conflicts of interests that should prevent governmental labs, and labs that have gov connections, from getting the job.
At this point there will be no need to prove that nano-thermite was the culprit; enough to establish that it is one of the suspects. That´s it.

Simon001 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:16pm.

Login to post comments
11 votes

Once again, they do the "NIST sidestep".

Of course web stiffeners are used to prevent web crippling. But that doesnt mean that the same plate won't also help resist the bottom flange from folding in the highly unlikely event that some strange additional force pushed the beam sideways.
Newton says that the forces on the plate works both ways. Just like a brace under a bookshelf is designed to hold the shelf up, that same shelf brace will also help brace the wall in the highly unlikely event that some strange additional force pushes sideways on the wall. Yet that's not the reason that the "shelf designer" put the brace there.
It's the physics of the forces that the brace resists that must be factored in to any honest analysis, not the "intent" of why it was put there, that matters.
But of course when it comes to 9/11 , we really don't expect much of an honest analysis from NIST.

Jon Cole on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 9:02am.

911blogger mods help Kawika Alter Reality

Something strange is happening at 911blogger. Or something stranger. Or something that's been going on for awhile but has gone unnoticed because people are blinded by the "truth". That include persons who criticize the "truth" movement, as well as those who consider it their personal religion.

Make no mistake: 9/11 "Truth" is a fraud. But the flaw many make in trying to expose the fraud is focusing on wacked out and unsubstantiated theories. This is helpful as a flag something is amiss(Bentham vanity press, Steven Jones "overunity"scam), but it doesn't show how fraud works. Or prove the persons pushing this wacked out garbage know they are pushing wacked out garbage.

But when the webmaster/mods/siteowners collude to deceive readership--while soliciting donations from readership--then you know the people involved are pushing a con.

Recently, in one of the ongoing attempts to keep up the front of a legitimate activist activity, an article was published on September 24th by 911blogger user kawika titled:
60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

For almost two months no one said a thing except simple truths, who commented on the 26th. Here is the Google cache of the thread, followed by a screencapture:
.......................................
This is Google's cache of http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Oct 31, 2013 20:36:33 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

Text-only version

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Posted by kawika on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 11:05pm

It has been 60 days since I asked NIST about the numerous discrepancies between Frankel Fabrication Shop Drawing #9114 and certain figures found in their WTC7 report NCSTAR 1-9.
Frankel Drawing #9114 clearly shows stiffener plates welded onto the end of the girder that NIST claims walked off its C79 seated connection on floor 13, leading to an unprecedented global progressive collapse.
Please contact NIST Director Patrick Gallagher and Public Affairs Officer Michael Newman at the following email addresses and ask for a prompt reply to these pertinent questions.
michael.newman@nist.gov
patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
You may phone them at:
Patrick Gallagher-- 301-975-2300 (Director )
Michael Newman-- 301-975-3025 (Public Affairs)
********************************************************
To: michael.newman@nist.gov; patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
Subject: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:31:55 -0400
Dear Mr. Newman and Mr. Gallagher,
It has been 60 days since I sent my inquiry regarding the figures in NCSTAR 1-9.
I copy the original emails below for you convenience.
When may I expect a reply?
Thank you very much,
David Cole
________________________________________
To: michael.newman@nist.gov; patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
Subject: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:48:48 -0400
Dear Mr. Newman,
On March 16, 2012 I wrote your office with an inquiry about certain errors in the NCSTAR 1-9 report. Your reply follows:
From: michael.newman@nist.gov
To:
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:49:50 -0400
Subject: Your Inquiry on NIST NCSTAR 1-9
Dear Mr. Cole,
Joseph Main forwarded your e-mail of March 16 to me for handling. Our researchers looked into the issue you raised and found that there is indeed an error in the drawing number cited for Figure 8-16 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7. The drawing used in Figure 8-16 was “Structural Drawing S8” rather than “Erection Drawing E12/13”. Figure 8-16 is used to locate features of the floor framing, and either drawing would serve this purpose. The differences between the two drawings are minor, involving some notes that appear in one drawing but not the other. The information of interest is the same in both drawings, and the error in the drawing number referenced does not affect any observations, findings or conclusions in the NCSTAR 1-9 report.
NIST will include an erratum to the report to indicate this correction.
Thank you for catching this error.
Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs
********************************************************************* Given that as a result of my inquiry, NIST issued an Erratum (April 2012) concerning Figure 8-16, making reference to a specific drawing (structural drawing, Cantor S-8), and given the fact that a similar Erratum (June 2012) addressed the seat width and walk off distances for the 13th floor, column 79 girder connection, also made reference to a specific drawing (Frankel #1091), I now have a number of pertinent questions regarding other Figures in NCSTAR 1-9.
Technical Questions:
In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create
• Figure 8-21?
• Figure 8-23?
• Figure 8-26?
• Figure 8-27?
• Figure 11-16?
• Figure 11-19?
• Figure 12-24?
• Figure 12-25?
Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above?
Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?
Thank you very much,
David Cole

Login to post comments
3 votes

well done

... will watch this with interest.
In the meantime, here's another building that's reportedly had explosives hit one or two critical columns - but no global implosion, only partial collapse. officials trying to put this damage down to 'burning mattresses'.
"Kenya's Westgate Mall - Gaping Chasm as Three Stories Blown Out"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432943/Kenya-Westgate-mall-atta...
Strangely enough, this Westgate shopping centre is owned by Silverstein's partner who bought Building 7 with him - Frank Lowy of Westfield Co.

Simple Truths on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 10:13am.

Screen:

But someone grew unhappy about the lack of traffic. Whether it was Kawika himself or the site owners, we know for certain the site owners retconned the thread in November, because only the sit owners could change the dates of articles, comments and content. Now the article opens with a new date and time:

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Posted by kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 12:54am
It has been 60 days since I asked NIST about the numerous discrepancies between Frankel

At least Nov 12 was also a Tuesday. But otherwise it is rife with anomalies like retaining a url with the original date:

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply

Truncating Simple Truth's comment from

"well done

... will watch this with interest.
In the meantime, here's another building that's reportedly had explosives hit one or two critical columns - but no global implosion, only partial collapse. officials trying to put this damage down to 'burning mattresses'.
"Kenya's Westgate Mall - Gaping Chasm as Three Stories Blown Out"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432943/Kenya-Westgate-mall-atta...
Strangely enough, this Westgate shopping centre is owned by Silverstein's partner who bought Building 7 with him - Frank Lowy of Westfield Co.

Simple Truths on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 10:13am.
"

to :

thanks

... will watch this with interest.

Simple Truths on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 6:55am.

And all new comments oddly are dated Nov 9th, like this one:

Can you post or publish a link to some kind of visual that makes the point about the "web/flange stiffeners" in a more graphic form? I've spent about an hour looking at the report and looking at the diagram 9114 and I can't identify any structure that would restrain the girder from moving.
Woody

woodbourne on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 1:28pm.

Making one suspect that Novemeber 9th was the real date of the retcon, 12th being chosen to retain Tuesday? Hard to tell.

Read the archive of new thread(up to Nov 12th anyway) here: http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/text-of-badly-faked-retcon-of.html

The question remains: why does Ted Tilton and(presumably) Justin Keogh want 911blogger readers and donors to believe Kawika's article was published in November instead of September?

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Text of badly faked retcon of 911blogger NIST thread

Observe the url retains the original date September 25, 2013:

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply

Also observe first comments following Simple truths extremely edited comment are dated before the fake November 12, 2013 date. Notice how no one notices this. They can see obscure(made up) evidence of a "secret" government conspiracy, but can't see discrepancies right in front of their eyes.

Or all thread participants are lying scammers:

...................................................................................

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Posted by kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 12:54am

Login to post comments
4 votes

thanks

... will watch this with interest.

Simple Truths on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 6:55am.

Diagram

Can you post or publish a link to some kind of visual that makes the point about the "web/flange stiffeners" in a more graphic form? I've spent about an hour looking at the report and looking at the diagram 9114 and I can't identify any structure that would restrain the girder from moving.
Woody

woodbourne on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 1:28pm.

Girder Movement

The stiffeners strengthen the girder end, transferring the load to the 2" thick underseat plate through the seat plate. They make the footprint of the girder wider, otherwise the load would be concentrated at or near the junction of web and flange.
They do not restrain the girder from moving. What they do is prevent the flange from folding in the unlikely scenario that the girder could move westerly across the seat, which eventually means the web would reach the edge of the seat. If this could happen (very unlikely) the flange would fold without the stiffeners in place.
I say very unlikely because there are a number of strange conditions offered by NIST that are necessary for the girder to even begin to move:
1. 4 hours of fire
2. Shear studs in the composite floor system break throughout the region allowing the beams to expand
3. Beams to the east thermally expand breaking the bolts holding the girder to the seat
4. No studs installed on the girder
5. Beams somehow expand 6.25"
However, if the beams expand, then so does the girder, which would trap the girder between the side plates of C79, limiting any movement to about 3.5".
NIST initially said the movement was 5.5", but changed this to 6.25" after we notified them that the seat was actually 12" wide, not 11". So you can see that 5.5" is impossible when girder expansion is understood.
See the evidence here: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-11-06/case-against-nist
The graphics there show a hypothetical 8.75" displacement (no heating), where red is high stress and blue is low. This proves that even at 2.5" further than NIST's distance correction of 6.25" the flange did not fold and the girder stays on the seat.
Result: No girder failure to initiate a global progressive collapse.
Here is a labeled displacement model for terminology.
http://imageshack.com/scaled/640x480/7/x2r8.jpg

kawika on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 2:24pm.

Girder Movement

So, if I read you right, and thanks for the diagram, this has nothing to do with whether or not the girder could be moved enough to then be rocked off the seat by the beams. If that's correct, then I'm not sure I see why this is important to any discussion of the NIST simulation. Since the simulation didn't show the flanges folding and you find that unlikely in any case, why is it relevant to the NIST's explanation of the collapse mechanism? I do understand your other points, just this one baffles me as to relevance. You seem to actually want to make the point that the girder NEEDS to fold which both you and the NIST agree didn't happen, in order for the girder to move off the seat but I still can't (sadly) understand your argument here.

woodbourne on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 5:54pm.

Rock?

Who mentioned rocking off? You asked if the stiffeners prevent the girder from moving. I explained that.
You clearly understand more about the connection.
You now mention the NIST simulation. Why not tell us what you see in the simulation that doesn't comport with the narrative. Yeah, it's confusing. I suggest you scrutinize the sim and the narration and you may come a deeper understanding.
It's the flange that NIST says failed so the girder could fall from the seat. I say this is impossible because the stiffeners prevent flange failure.

kawika on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 10:25pm.

Flange

Two follow ups. First, can you be precise about what flange you are saying that the NIST simulation showed as failing? I'm thinking that it's the bottom flange on the girder which is being pushed west but I'm not certain that's what you're saying. Second, where does it say in the report that this flange "failed to the girder could fall from the seat"? Every time I look at the document what I see is that the girder is supposed to be moving westward by several inches but I can't find anything in the report that says that the flange failed and that this failure caused the girder to fall off it's seat. Of course I can see that once the girder is only partially supported at some point there is a lot of force pressing on that flange but I don't see where flange failure is called out in the report. To be clear YOU didn't mention "rocking off" - that was my understanding of how the girder gets off it's seat. I'm not sure what you mean by "the narrative" so I can't respond to that. I'd prefer to keep the focus on your comments about the importance of the web stiffeners and your point about the failure of the girder flange.

woodbourne on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:18am.

NIST's words

On Page 488 (PDF page 554) of NCSTAR 1-9 see this:
Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat primarily in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the 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. Under such conditions, the beam was removed.
The only flange that NIST can be claiming failure on is the east flange.
Please show us the SIM you are referring to. I am not aware of any SIM showing the flange failure. Just narratives.
Here is the girder, pushed 8.75" to the west. With stiffeners, the east flange cannot fail. (No heating was applied to this FEA)
http://imageshack.com/a/img31/4332/6obx.jpg

kawika on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:50am.

That´s it

"as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads"
Compare this to NIST´s reply to why the stiffener plates were omitted: "The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses."
Peculiar* that they somehow did not realize that the model still assumes failure due to lack of stiffness at that very same place!

Simon001 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 1:40pm.

Not Exactly What I Asked

That quote simply describes how the simulation worked. (When I used the term simulation, I was referring generally to the computer simulations run by the NIST which led them to their conclusions about the most likely causes for the collapse of WTC7). It doesn't appear to represent any assertion that the web on the girder (between columns 44 and 79 as I recall) failed or that such a failure led to the global collapse of the structure. That's actually all I was asking. All it says is that WHEN the simulation showed the "web no longer supported" then the beam was removed from further inclusion in the simulation. So, I'm left, I think, with my original question. How does this have anything to do with the movement of the girder which is central to the collapse sequence? I thought that the key point about that girder is on page 536 which says that the girder to column connection at column 79 failed due to bolts shearing and to the girder being pushed off the bearing seat by thermal expansion. So, I still don't see that the presence or absence of those stiffeners is damaging to the credibility of the simulation.

woodbourne on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 4:48pm.

past the half-way point..

I think I understand your question. Look at the video below from dtg86 for reference. NIST assumes that once the heat expansion causes the beam to move past the half-way point off the seat(those 6.25 inches or whatever), then it fails because the lower left corner of the beam connection(see video) is too soft to bear the load. With the stiffener plate this is impossible as the supported(stiffened) connection is not too soft and would have to be pushed the whole distance(another 6.25 inches), i.e. completely off the girder.

Simon001 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 5:07pm.

Thanks

I looked at the video and I read your explanation, so now I'm certain that I understand your point. I'm sorry that I can't agree with it. The NIST report never says that the girder fails because the "lower left hand corner" (I think you must mean the girder) fails. That's not an unreasonable idea but that's not what's in the report as I read it. I hope I'm not confusing beams with girders, I'm not a structural engineer but my point is with regards to the girder which traverses the space between columns 79 and 44. All I actually know, again from my reading, is that the simulation shows that the girder moved enough so that it could no longer support any significant load.

woodbourne on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:28pm.

It actually says..

NIST says the flange fails after being moved 6.25 inches "as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads" - in other words it is assumed to be too soft on its own to carry the burden. The NIST report does not say "lower left hand corner", that is my explanation to you with reference to the video.
And if you watch the video again with this in mind, you realize that the assumed failure zone is the bottom left of that "bottom flange" NIST refers to("insufficient flexural stiffness").
But as gerrycan1 and others are pointing out, this lack of stiffness is due to the omission of the aptly named "stiffener plate", which invalidates the "assumption" by NIST.
It really is as simple as that.

Simon001 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 10:07pm.

Not Really So Simple

The video is your own creation and really cannot be cited in this manner but it really made the point very clear. The NIST report contains the wording you've cited but this refers to the criteria for removing beams from the analysis and not specifically to the collapse sequence. I can't read this the way you do, that it must mean that this particular girder suffered this failure. It's germane to note that, in the part of the report that details the collapse sequence, this is not mentioned as pertaining to the girder. Finally, this paragraph and another one with similar construction in the report refer to beams, not girders. I think that's why the NIST is saying that your thesis is irrelevant - this was the failure mechanism for some of the floor beams but not the girder that seems to be what you asked the NIST in the first place. So, the girder had a stiffener but the failure mechanism was different, the report says "walk off" and "bolt shear" not "insufficient flexural stiffness". That's how I read the report. Sorry that I can't agree with your analysis. I do think that they could have been clearer in the diagrams.

woodbourne on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 1:33pm.

The "walk-off" in detail..

Listen, you say that the report says "walk off". More specifically NIST says 6.25 inches of "walking"...but the girder rests on a plate that is 12" wide...
so how come it falls off at only 6.25 inches?
Now stop the video at about 3.39 and see how this looks. The girder does not "walk" the whole way off the column, it goes a bit more than half-way (6.25 inches), at which point it is resting on one side of an upside-down "T", and it is this horizontal part of the upside-down "T" that fails due to lack off stiffness.
The video is not mine by the way, I just cited it.

Simon001 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 3:02pm.

How NIST defines "walk-off"

To be sure we should look at the term "walk-off" in its full context as NIST defines it.
Thermal Effects on Connections for Floor Beams and Girders
"Thermal expansion of beams and girders also caused connection failures. Restrained thermal expansion
of steel beams and girder within the structural system resulted in (1) bolt shear due to increased axial
forces, (2) walk-off of seated connections after bolts had sheared, and (3) failure of connection welds to
beam webs under shear forces.
Shear failure of all the bolts in fin and knife connections, or failure of the weld to the beam or girder web
in header connections, resulted in a loss of horizontal and vertical support to the beam or girder. In seated
connections (SWC, STP, and STC), the shear failure of bolts at the bearing seat and top clip or plate,
caused loss of horizontal support but not vertical support. As the east floor beams and the girder
continued to thermally expanded, the four bolts at the seated connection were sheared, resulting in a loss
of horizontal support at the connection. Loss of vertical support occurred when the beam or girder
“walked off” the bearing seat or when the bearing seat weld failed. Walk-off occurred when beams that
framed into the girders from one side thermally expanded and the resulting compressive forces in the
beams pushed laterally on the girder from one side, sheared the girder bolts, and then continued to
laterally push the girder until it walked off the bearing seat.
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. (Rev 12 in.) wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79
had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in (Rev. 6,25)., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat. Additional
factors that contributed to this failure were the absence of shear studs on the girders that would have
provided lateral restraint and the one-sided framing of the northeast corner floor beams that allowed the
floor beams to push laterally on the girder due to thermal expansion." -- NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Pg 525 pdf (emphasis mine)

dtg86 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 11:16pm.

Thanks

Let´s hope woodbourne finds your explanation better than mine.
To clarify, the "web" is the middle part of the girder, or the "I"? Did NIST back up with calculations the claim that the rest of the girder is too soft to bear the weight?
The only thing that bothers me is the alternative mode of failure, "when the bearing seat weld failed", which apparently is not assumed to have been the failure mode at the crucial Column 79. Did NIST give evidence for how and why the seat could have failed, and could it possibly offer this mode as an alternative for the walk off in case it accepts you have proven the walk off to be impossible?

Simon001 on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 11:26pm.

Re walkoff...

I feel I need to chip in here because there is a question in my mind re the "walking off" (which may be what Woody is getting at). To explain, here is a simple analogy...
There is a drinks mat on my desk here in front of me. When I push it over the edge of the desk it gets to half way and falls off. I could say it tips off or rocks off. So, in the case of the girder - as it moves off the east side of its seat, when it gets over half way, it tips to the East (clockwise). In this scenario, the bottom, left flange has no bearing.
I hope this makes sense and look forward to your comments.

jimwilkie on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 10:00am.

Right

At some point the combination of gravity loading and walk off causes the girder to fall off it's seat. Exactly how this happens frankly I don't know. It's not the case that when you have a complex set of forces acting on a building which is losing it's structural integrity you can just can just claim that the only way it could have happened was if a web crippling failure (still hoping I'm using the term correctly) occurred within the structure of the girder. To respond to the post more directly, your analogy allows for only the force of gravity to be acting on your mat, what was going on in the collapse was vastly more complicated.

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 10:55am.

Walk vs Rock

You wrote: So, in the case of the girder - as it moves off the east side of its seat, when it gets over half way, it tips to the East (clockwise). In this scenario, the bottom, left flange has no bearing.
What you describe doesn't consider that the girder is pinched between the seat and the floor above over its entire length. Beams framing in the from the east keep it plumb.
Your drinks mat analogy is too flat and flexible. The girder is 33" tall, very strong.
The girder allegedly moves west off the west side of the seat. The east girder flange is the one that would necessarily fail--absent the stiffeners.
Here is the girder, with stiffeners in place, at 8.75" westerly displacement. The east flange in the foreground is not going to fail.
http://imageshack.com/a/img31/4332/6obx.jpg
But look, you can't have just beam expansion due to fire. The girder will expand too and it will be trapped by the western side plate, limiting movement to ~3.5"
Be careful. Consider all conditions.

kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 1:07pm.

Thanks for the reply but...

Even if the girder is pinched, the floor is weighing down on it. If it gets too far off its seat, could the girder and the floor collapse?
I realise my mat analogy is simplistic (and I got east and west the wrong way round). It was just to demonstrate the movement rather than the whole system. It was an alternative walk off scenario where the stiffeners do not play a part.
For the record, I have major issues with the NIST initiation event...
- The expanding beams only seem to be expanding one way. Why are the not pushing at the other end?
- The girder that gets pushed off its seat. Would it not more likely bend? Or more likely, the heated expanding beams sag?
- Even if the girder does get pushed off its seat? I just don't buy that causing a global collapse.
I am just slightly concerned that too much emphasis is being put on this one particular issue - the stiffeners.

jimwilkie on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 1:31pm.

Beam Expansion

Yes, you bring up a good point. NIST does say that the beams expand west. There would be bolt failure at the east exterior columns and the 1" gap there would be taken up before the girder begins to push, if it could push.
All of these movements depend upon giving NIST several major concessions:
1. 4 hour fire, instead of 30 minutes
2. Shear stud failure before 300C
3. Exterior beam to column connections remain intact.
4. Girder doesn't expand enough to get trapped in the side plates
5. Beams can expand 6.25" (Damn!)
But even after all this, once the girder begins to move west it can go in excess of 8.75 inches and still maintain structural integrity, carrying the floor load above. The FEA proves this.
Here is a shot of the east C38 connection. If NIST has bolts breaking on both ends of the girder, bolts breaking on the beam to girder fin plates, why aren't the east exterior connections giving up also?
http://imageshack.com/a/img31/7968/veym.jpg

kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 1:59pm.

Your Issues

1. The expanding beams DO push both ways. It's just the case that the exterior column connections are stronger than the ones at the girder. So the girder moves and not the exterior columns. The real point is that the force of expansion breaks the bolt connections at a really low temperature.
2. The girder bends in the middle where you would expect it to since there is no steel member preventing it from doing so and no shear studs to anchor it to the flooring. The heated beams apparently first expand and then twist and sag, you are correct.
3. Read the sequence on pages 352 and 353 to get a better idea of the actual sequence shown by the simulation. It's more complicated, as you expected, than just the girder failing.

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 3:30pm.

limited to 3.5"

I never noticed this before. How can NIST slither away from this one?
Also, is it not correct the the failure of the seat plate(pf) could not allow the girder to fall down since there is another plate(pg) directly below it, and since the girder is pressed up against the column it would still rest on pg?

Simon001 on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 3:14pm.

No Problem

This is fine, but has nothing to do with whether or not the girder had a web crippling (hope I'm using the term correctly) failure. That was the question posed by the OP to the NIST and their answer agrees with your(?) video- no web crippling failure occurred. I just don't see your point at all here, sorry.

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 10:51am.

Perfect

Yes, you can see that there is no mention of any form of web crippling failure here. That means that, unless you have some other citations, I'll stick to my premise which is that there was none mentioned in the report and thus the NIST's response to you makes perfect sense. The plates aren't in the diagrams because there presence didn't prevent walk off. That's because when they ran the simulation it didn't show that the girder failed in this manner. I do understand that this is just one facet of the concerns you have over that report, and honestly, I find the report more obscure than I'd like it to be. Having said that, this thread which is about the NIST's response hasn't uncovered anything that makes that response either incorrect or deliberately obfuscatory in nature. All you're actually citing here is that this girder would have been removed from the simulation (NIST term of art which I take to mean could no longer provide support) when it made a movement laterally of some specific amount, in this case 6.25 inches.

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 11:04am.

Video

Again you cite a video which is not part of the report and represents a particular view of what happened as the girder walked off the seat. So, while I can see your point, that's not in any part of the report that the NIST produced which was my point. Remember that this started because it was claimed that the presence on an extra stiffening element meant that the girder couldn't have failed in the manner shown in the video. You've also stated that this is part of the report but it's not AFAIK. The leaves me baffled. To put it another way, you have developed your own view on what was meant by the failure of the girder described in the report and then you have produced a video showing that it's not likely - you say "impossible". The NIST response simply said the same thing. They said that the presence of the stiffener plate was irrelevant since no web failure of the girder occurred in the simulation that they ran.

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 10:47am.

Non-sense

The video depicts NIST´s narrative and simply shows what happens at 6.25" according to NIST.
Have you understood that the descriptions of the girder break it into 2 parts? _I_
Look again at girder on the cover of the video. The "web" is the vertical part that looks like an I, and everybody agrees that this did not fail.
NIST is saying that it was ok to omit the "web-stiffener" because the "I" did not fail, but it is omitting the fact that the stiffener plate ALSO stiffens the horizontal part of the shape _I_ which is supposed to have failed.
You are perhaps confused because the way NIST puts it, it sounds like the girder did not flex away because it says the "web" did not flex away.

Simon001 on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 2:30pm.

Take a Look

If you simply look at figure 8-27B you can see that the NIST report posits no web crippling failure in the girder. It shows that the entire girder twisted and moved to the west. While I'd rather see something more detailed and sophisticated I think that this really settles the matter for me and should for you as well. The diagram shows that the web is intact but the vertical plate attaching it to the column has twisted allowing the entire girder to twist and the girder's end to be at an angle to horizontal. The twist is shown to be in the middle of the girder which is some 20 plus feet away from the stiffener plate that was left out. Apparently, the torque provided by the floor beam failures as well as the westward movement provided by their expansion and the general shifting of the girder itself by thermal expansion (must bow out/in as it's restrained at the columns from any east / west movement initially) is causing exactly what they said. The girder is rocked off (pg 353) is seat and there is no need to posit web failure. That's what their simulation showed.
I'm not going to try to address all the other points that have been raised about the report in this thread, just this one. It's simply not the case that the NIST has produced a report that depends upon the stiffener not being in place in order for a global collapse to occur. Thank you all for being so polite with someone who disagrees with you. There are many other forums where I am certain I wouldn't get the same treatment.
Woody

woodbourne on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 3:23pm.

WRONG - you are confused..

What you have done is to throw away NIST´s final conclusion of "walking" due to thermal expansion and replaced it with an earlier ABANDONED theory of the girder "rocking off", which is now completely irrelevant.
ONCE AGAIN, to understand what actually happened according to NIST´s final theory, take a good look at that video and keep in mind previous comments. It should be easy now to spot the importance of the omitted stiffener plates.

Simon001 on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 7:19pm.

Maybe this will help

dtg86 on Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:57am.

This thread seems to be

This thread seems to be bogged down by some misunderstanding about what NIST claimed, and why the discovered stiffeners are so important in showing that their ‘initiating event’ was wrong.
I will retrace some steps.
NIST said in the final report that global collapse resulted from column 79 buckling as it lost lateral support over multiple floors. That loss of lateral support was said to be the result of a cascade of floors in that area. The cascade of floors was said to be initiated by a single girder spanning columns 79 to 44, on floor 13, walking off its seat at 79. (see item #11, NCSTAR 1-9 (Nov. 2008), page 611, PDF page 677)
‘Differential thermal expansion’ was said to break shear studs in the composite floor in that NE area, allowing five beams, framing into that girder, to expand as heat increased and push the girder laterally towards the West. The girder itself was said to have no shear studs which would then allow it to slide unhindered under the floor system, Westwards.
They said that the beams then reached a temperature of 600 C, and expanded by 5.5”, which is the maximum axial expansion possible because heat beyond 600 C causes steel to soften, and the beams would begin to sag, causing the span to decrease rather than increase.
NIST said that as the seat at column 79 was 11” wide, then that 5.5” lateral move would push the girder halfway across its 11” seat. As the full floor load then came onto the lower flange of the girder, without support from the vertical web, that flange would fail and fold upwards. The girder would then fall, taking the five beams, and the entire floor area in the NE with it.
The alternative ‘rock off’ theory required the five beams to buckle downwards instead of pushing axially, causing the girder to rotate ( downwards from the top) until it was pulled off its seat towards the East. Then the girder would fall, taking the floor area in the NE with it. More of this later. (see NCSTAR 1-9 Draft, Aug. 2008, page 353, PDF page 397)
Researchers discovered that in fact the seat at column 79 was 12” wide and questioned NIST’s assertion that the girder would fail at 5.5”, as the web was still supported by the seat and the flange was not under stress.
NIST admitted this error and said that a typo was the cause of the 11” / 12” mistake. They issued an ‘erratum’ document correcting that. However, in the same erratum they went on to admit another mistake. One of the transposition of two figures. They said that the 5.5” should be replaced by a figure of 6.25”, from another part of the report – and vice versa.
The effect was that the new move of 6.25”, across the new 12” wide seat would still allow the web to have moved over half way, and the flange would then still fail as before.
Researchers also had discovered that NIST omitted stiffener plates fitted to the end of the girder at the column 79 end. Those plates are clearly shown on all drawings. Such plates are normally specified by the designer to avoid web crippling when a girder is quite tall, and are fitted at a bearing point to prevent possible flex of the upright web at that point.
However, they also very effectively enable the flange to support far more load, as the plates also brace the flange to the web as well as brace the web to the flange. (see the video posted in this thread for more info on this). The effect would be to allow the girder to be pushed much further than even the new 6.25” and still not drop. If it doesn’t drop it then can’t allow a cascade of floors to occur and then column 79 to buckle. Without that column buckle the global collapse then can’t happen.
NIST was informed of the discovery of the stiffener plates and asked to explain why they had been omitted from all their own drawings when they were clearly shown on the construction drawings themselves. They were also asked to comment on the effect on their final report by this omission.
No reply was received, despite reminders, and that was the start of this thread in 911 Blogger.
However, since the thread began NIST eventually replied, admitting that they deliberately omitted the stiffener plates from drawings, and from all their analyses and calculations, because initial research showed that web crippling was not a factor and therefore including the stiffeners was not required.
Whilst this thread subject title is no longer valid following NISTs reply, the topic itself is far from over. The stiffeners make the whole ‘walk-off’ scenario impossible. And that makes the floor failure not possible. And then the cascade of floors can’t happen. Column 79 can’t buckle. Global collapse then cannot proceed.
Their alternative theory of ‘rock-off’ can also be overturned because other steel elements were also omitted from the report which would prevent beam buckling. But that aspect can be handled in another thread if required.
Meanwhile, another thread titled – ‘ NIST Replies to Stiffeners Inquiry’, here in 911Blogger, can take forward the discussions, to bring this important development to more people's attention.

kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 8:24pm.

8-27 Redux

The diagram (8-27) shows that no web crippling or flange failure at the seat as part of the collapse sequence that occurred in the simulation. Rather the top clip appears to be failing, allowing the girder to rotate at the seat. I do understand that you think that the stiffener plates would have helped to stiffen the girder in a general sense but I don't see how this helps your argument - the actual twist is happening far away from the seat but the torque gets transmitted to the seat/column/girder connections.
That's why NIST responded to you(?) as they did - the plates were omitted because there was no crippling of the web or failure of the flange at the seat. It would be interesting to talk about your other points, which I have not researched very well to date, some other time. As far as this one is concerned, I think that I understand your position, but NIST is telling you that the failure model which came out of the simulations made those stiffeners moot. You may want to try a different tack and do some calculations and demonstrate that the girder can't rotate in the seat in the manner shown in the diagram by doing some math (beyond me at this stage in life).
The video shows a linear lateral movement of the girder westward, this is also different from what was depicted in the report, FYI which shows a bowing as well as the aforementioned twisting.
Woody

woodbourne on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 10:53am.

Hi Woody

My question to you is what would cause the girder to fail when NIST supposed it was pushed 5.5" (revised to 6.25). I believe they said that the flange was unable to support the load. So what would happen to the supposed overloaded flange at that point?
Also, NIST claimed that the girder may have been 'rocked off' to the east, as well as claiming the push to the west. I think that is perhaps where some of the confusion on this issue is coming from. As for the video, I made that, and I stand by what it says 100%. I'd be happy to take the time to discuss the whole issue of the stiffeners with you here or elsewhere, skype for example, as I don't think it would take long to clear up the confusion. Feel free to message me to this end.

gerrycan1 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 11:49am.

Who are you kidding, "Woody"?

You refuse to acknowledge that you are confusing an alternative "rock off" hypothesis with the "walk-off due to heat expansion" final hypothesis which NIST chose to represent the initiation for global collapse, and you are pretending that you have not been informed about this here: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply#comment...
NIST does not base anything on 8-27, it was an exercise to demonstrate an alternative theory that is irrelevant to the final conclusion which is the "walk-off" due to heat expansion.
If you cannot acknowledge your mistake you would appear to be doing this on purpose, which would mean your only intention is to waste our time aka trolling, in which case you will be ignored and perhaps even banned from the forum.

Simon001 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 11:56am.

Concessions

To obtain a 5.5+ inch walk-off of the girder to the west through beam expansion you would have to accept ALL of the following.
To obtain a buckling of the eastern beams you would have to accept ALL of the following.
1. 4 hour fire
2. Shear studs in the composite floor system break throughout the region allowing the beams to expand
3. No stiffeners on the C79 end of the girder
4. No beam stubs on the G3005 north beam
The fuel load supports 30 minutes. NIST's model used 240 minutes.
Start there.

kawika on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:50pm.

Login to post comments
1 vote

new theory

Woody has abandoned the the heat expansion/walk off theory, the question is whether or not he knows it.

Simon001 on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 12:59pm.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Breaking news: On November 1, 2013, a complaint was filed with the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation

WELCOME!

CONNECT

Follow our campaign on Facebook:

The Latest...

On The Issues

New 911 Commission

Meiswinkle Calls for New 9/11 Commission

Tonight at 10PM EST/ 7PM PST: Criminal defense attorney David Meiswinkle talks about his push for a new 9/11 investigation in New Jersey http://noliesradio.org/

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Lance Ciepiela via Frank Agamemnon

Thursday, November 14, 2013

NIST Replies to Stiffeners Inquiry

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

thanks

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Tonight at 10PM EST/ 7PM PST: Criminal defense attorney David Meiswinkle talks about his push for a new 9/11 investigation in New Jersey
http://noliesradio.org/