Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7

description and links to follow. Help us research at http://express.paltalk.com/index.html...
Drawings used in this video:

E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/91...

S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417...

S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/w...


Drawings showing more shear studs detail:

S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/71...

• Category

  People & Blogs

[toodance]

imho, excellent point of analysis.

in reality, access to the 'as-built' plans or a change order record would resolve the question of the final locations of the shear studs....

[71gerry]

Thanks,and yes,I agree that a full set of structural drawing books for wtc7 would be nice .The research for these videos took many people a long time. The stud issue alone is significant,but there are far bigger problems for NISTs story to come in this series of videos.On the 'as built' issue,I think it is pretty clear that floors10 and 20 require shear studs to give cohesion between the girder and the floorslab.I cant see how similar cohesion wouldnt be required at floor12/13. Watch this space.

[1917geoff]

There are some serious errors and much that is irrelevant in your video. Most disgraceful of all, is your use of S-8-10 and 20. These floor plans have nothing to do with 12 and 13. For that you should have used S-8. But that didn’t suit your purposes did it, because it shows NO SHEAR STUDS on that girder.

Geoff1917

[71gerry]

so which floor does s8 refer to specifically geoff, cos i think it refers to over 30 floors and is a very general drawing. A structure like this has many drawings for each floor. The question is why NIST will not release the complete set of drawings. That would settle the issue once and for all. I would say that s8 suits yours and NISTs story so thats why you refer to it. And what does the bottom note at 1-40 on the video say?

[71gerry]

No answer Geoff? The 'S-8 drawing is typical for over 30 floors. S-8-10 and 20 are specific to floors 10 and 20, and show studs. The right drawings to reference are S-8-12 or S-8-13. not a general drawing that covers 30 or so levels of the building like S8. I would have included s-8-12,and s-8-13 in an ideal world, maybe you could get me the link to either of those? Maybe not....Hope you get the msg, floor specific drawings have 3 figures NOT JUST 1. Happy hunting. Try again.

[Isaac Newton]

NIST admits free fall occurred for 105 feet. in Fig. 3-15 of Final Report. This by itself is impossible even if just on one side of building. But it happened at anywhere 300 feet wide. Even if it were accelerating at any rate, not just free fall, any mass on any planet is exerting less F than its' own static weight. Even if an entire floor collapsed, there would have to be a jolt, deceleration, to exert a Force>static weight. In physics book this is called apparent weight. Also, E=t+v

[Isaac Newton]

Most do not know sheer studs or the exp. coefficients of concrete/steel.A more obvious point is clear to anyone who understands H.S. physics.Even if all 27 core columns were destroyed simultaneously, it would not explain the exterior of the building falling at freefall straight down, as they would be pulled inward.All exterior columns also have to be cut w/ precision.Any mass falling at freefall exerts ZERO downward force.Any bending,crushing, breaking conn. for first 105 ft from alt. forces.

[honestengineer9]

1:22 - did you ever have a professor who taught like that? ;) .... and from here - then OBVIOUSLY this reduces to this ... while us students were left looking at each other - 'obviously?' lol. I like this joke even more so - 'And then a miracle occurs' LOL

[Sun Tzu]

Wow, attack NIST. Fire destroyed WTC 7, and your Internet engineering skills are perfect for 911 truth. What engineering school did you graduate from? Where is the engineering, all I hear is talk, BS, nonsense. Do you know the meaning of probable? lol

Where is your paper?

11 years, no clue from 911 truth. Just silly BS.

[honestengineer9]

3:00 Simply put-because-otherwise 'they' could NOT have been able to produce a simulation of a collapse-so'they'just fudge the #'s so that'they'CAN produce a collapse(yet note-it's not symetrical in'their''simulation'2be able2cause a'collapse').WHEN U perform a simulation-youMUSTlook@the result-&see if it models the actual event-IF the simulation does NOT look like how something happened in real life-then your model is flawed-&you have to re-examine your assumptions until it does mimic real life

[swright7777]

Time to first lie: 32 seconds. Not a record, but not bad.

[Smedley Butler]

what is semetrical ?

there was a symmetrical free fall collapse for 2.25 seconds as NIST admitted after confronted by AE911truth, if that's what you're referring to

[mikecorbeil]

Re. "Dr." Woods, I wonder what her motive is; reminding a little of the claim that no real planes hit at the WTC. Instd, what on-the-scene eyewitnesses saw and news media film footage shows is holographic images made to look like real planes. It's nonsensical for "theory" and, thankfully, extremely few people bought into this. As for Woods coming to say that lasers were used to trigger the thermite, this can apparently be done, a Wikipedia page says. But, it isn't necessary & is harmful theory.

[mikecorbeil]

If you're right about Carlin saying that thermite isn't used for controlled demolition, then it's apparently easy to do Web searches to learn that he's dead wrong about this. I don't see anything wrong with using "words like Poof and snowball to describe explosions". It takes a little imagination to understand what's meant by the use of "snowball" in this case, but it isn't super difficult.

[mikecorbeil]

Woods' book is the only resource reference you have about what you say? If so and it does seem to be, since you referred to nothing else for supporting info., then it's very foolish, careless. What she says needs to be corroborated by other scientific people wholly independent of her and you apparently don't have such info, so you're not helping yourself to seem credible for anyone who refuses to be lead in a blind manner.