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
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
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
thanks
Diagram
Woody
Girder Movement
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
Girder Movement
Rock?
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.
Flange
NIST's words
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
That´s it
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!
Not Exactly What I Asked
past the half-way point..
Thanks
It actually says..
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.
Not Really So Simple
The "walk-off" in detail..
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.
How NIST defines "walk-off"
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)
Thanks
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?
Re walkoff...
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.
Right
Walk vs Rock
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.
Thanks for the reply but...
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.
Beam Expansion
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
Your Issues
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.
limited to 3.5"
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?
No Problem
Perfect
Video
Non-sense
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.
Take a Look
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
WRONG - you are confused..
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.
Maybe this will help
This thread seems to be
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.
8-27 Redux
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
Hi Woody
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.
Who are you kidding, "Woody"?
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.
Concessions
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.
new theory