WTC7 and NIST - Shear Ignorance

I made this video along with some other researchers from our 911 Truth chatroom. It addresses the issue of shear studs in WTC7 and NIST's denials and admissions of their existence. Comments/criticisms are welcome. I will include links and references in the description as soon as I can.

Great video

Excellent video. If I could add anything, I would mention any response (if any) by NIST in regards to correcting this fact. Has a request for correction ever been submitted to NIST about this or any formal Q n A from NIST PR? Does NIST cite any reference that supports their claim outside of the vague reference of Cantor 1985 in () as seen in the video? I would like read the source quote to see if they are using it out of context.

Great work.



That looks pretty good

That looks good to me. One thing that I think has been under stressed, and this is no critique of your video, is the "critical column" language of NIST. That phrase "critical column" gives weasel wording a bad name. There are no such columns in a moment frame structure. There is such a thing as a critical column though and that would be a King Pole in a circus tent. On the subject of columns, different building, has anyone ever taken a good look a the hat trusses on WTC Towers one and two? Those things would withstand about five Armageddons (it's an industry term).

Architect Ron Avery talks about the hat trusses

Ron Avery of the Austin, TX area talks about the hat trusses. ( All videos to the interview here... )
At around the 8:30 mark, Ron begins to talk about the trusses.

...then continuing...

Ron also built a wonderful scale model of The World Trade Centers and Building 7

Great video! Another educational video is for classroom use.

This is the video shown on college campuses.

In order to download the video, please cut and paste the following into the address bar of your browser.

This link will allow you to download and save the video file, so you can play it.

The size is approximately 700 MB, and it will take some time to download.

The file is a 45 minute excerpt of the new film by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out.

It is used with permission.

More support for CD

I just want to add my support for your thoughtful work. We need intelligent discussion on the subject of the WTC towers destruction and this is a great contribution. Thanks

Well done.....

One suggestion perhaps to follow up on. The NIST fire floors in question, (coincidently on the same floors that held some critical SEC case files I think) are floors 12-13. The Emory Roth & Sons plans - Sheet S-8 "Typ. Framing Plan" applies to floors 8-20 and 24-45. On that particular sheet, the W33x130 indicates a [1] " camber but I did not see any similar indication < > for shear studs.

Perhaps S-8 10 and S 8 20 are shop drawings that apply to it?

Regardless, there is no question that there are many shear studs bonding the concrete to the steel on all the surrounding wide flanges that directly tie into the W33x130 on each side. How they all broke allowing the W33 x 130 to slide off its beam seat remains quite the mystery, and requires a miracle since the delta T applied to the thermal expansion of that particular beam is not enough to push it off its seat, as pointed out in a prior Kevin Ryan video regarding this issue.

I agree

I agree with you, and thanks. I would like to get details on how many mill applied studs (if any) may have been used as they wouldnt be listed on these. I think whats really important here is that if the studs were called for on any of the floors at that particular girder, then there would presumably have to be similar cohesion between the girder and the slab at 12/13 for the structure to be consistent. I see no reason why this wouldnt be done using shear studs, and theres nothing in these drawings that confirms suggests their absence at that level. NIST need to release the whole set of books.
And again, yes, NIST say that the floor beams expanded and pushed the girder, so E12 13 also confirms that we would have , in those circumstances, studded beams pushing against studded beams either side of this girder. Whatever way you view it, the failure of that girder makes no sense. Even NISTs own figures which are way off, can't produce this degree of expansion. It's almost as if they have taken any oppposing resistance to the direction the girder is claimed to have walked, and set it to zero, or possibly less in their model and analysis. Some brilliant details of studs and all sorts on these drawings generally. We thought it would be good to do a small clip and see what the reaction was before we expanded on our thoughts on the drawings that we have.

Looking closer........

Could you explain how only the beams could expand and not the girder?

If the girder expands even two inches over 45 feet it locks the girder into the channel at column 79. At that point there is no way it can walk sideways even three inches, let alone six.

So NIST leaves out the studs so the girder can walk, but NIST also leaves out the girder expansion. What else did they fail to consider?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it did not expand and could walk without encountering any obstructions such as the 2" side plate.. What happens when it gets to 6-1/4" or past the web? Does it topple over? Not if the five beams are still attached.

Wouldn't it have to push 12 inches to be able to clear the seat and drop straight down?

Once the girder web is no longer over the seat it would fall

as the bending stress on the girder flange would be extremely high, so high it would almost be as though nothing was there. Since the seat was 12 inches wide the girder would have to move at least 6 inches sideways to fall. You could actually say a little more than that since the web had width beyond 6 inches from the edge of the seat.

NIST does say the girder expanded longitudinally and that this is what caused the girder to seat bolts to break. Column 79 was a built up column with extra plates welded to its flanges, but those plates did not extend much beyond the flanges of the column to provide much of a channel. The girder was also angled relative to column 79, so even with a couple of inches of girder expansion any sideways movement of the girder would not be restrained by column 79. Look at Figures 8-20 and 8-21 on pages 348 and 349 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 to see what I am saying here.

However, there is virtually no chance the beams could expand 6 inches. The expansion of 52 foot long steel beams at 600 degrees C (1,112 degrees F), after being heated from room temperature of 21 degrees C, is 5.07 inches. This is also assuming that they remain completely straight and don't sag at all. So in the worst possible case the center of the web would have still been an inch away from the edge of the seat. In reality, NIST needs the beams to get to 700 degrees C (1,292 degrees F) to expand 6 inches, but here it is really hard to make a case that they wouldn't be sagging and it is pretty hard to heat the beam to that temperature.

This also assumes all of the beam expansion went in the direction of the interior girder, which would require an infinitely stiff exterior and is also unlikely.

What gets even more silly is that in the WTC 7 report they also try to say that the beams could have pulled the girder off its seat by the beams going into lateral torsional buckling and shortening. I think this is what they are trying to say can happen even at 400 degrees C. However, this won't happen either for a couple of reasons; if the girder could be pushed or even rotated in the horizontal plane there would be nothing to resist the beams and cause them to go into compression, and even if they did buckle the shortening can't be more than the expansion in a horizontal member as it then relieves the load.

To your point about the girder being restrained by the channel of the column, it is this trapping between the flanges of column 44 at the exterior that NIST tries to use as a restraint to claim buckling of the beams would have occurred, but that can't happen for the reasons given above.

Of course, the above is allowing for no shear studs on the girder, which is extremely unlikely and Frankel Steel project engineer John Salvarinas' 1986 paper about the construction of WTC 7 shows they were called for there.

If NIST actually had a real natural explanation here they would have proved it with a physical test. They didn't.

Picked up on Infowars too....