Can YOU Spot The Difference?
What's the difference? Those plates welded to the girder. They are called stiffeners.
Why aren’t the stiffeners shown in the version above from the NIST report when they are shown in the actual WTC7 drawings? (NOTE: I drew the stiffeners in because NIST failed to.)
Why the stiffeners are so important:
Stiffener plates are critically important. They allow a girder to transfer loads to a wider footprint (bearing surface) and increase its ability to resist failure.
The stiffeners not only allow the load to be spread wider, but if the girder could shift (walk-off) as NIST alleges, they strengthen the web and bottom flanges. So if the girder web could somehow reach the edge of the 12” seat, the flanges would not fold under an offset load. NIST claims only 5.5” was necessary. They later revised this to 6.25”, but with the stiffeners the distance required would be approximately 10” before the girder could leave the seat.
The stiffeners would make the type of failure that NIST supposed in their thermal expansion hypothesis completely impossible because the beams could not expand more than 4.75" no matter how hot they got. The reason the expansion is limited is because at just above 600C the beams shorten due to sagging more than they expand.
The stiffener plates as shown in the WTC7 drawings were installed on the key girder that NIST claims initiated an unprecedented global progressive collapse of the building. NIST did not include them in their analysis.
Thus if the girder can’t walk-off the seat it does not fall onto floor 12 and likewise floor 12 doesn’t collapse. The whole progressive collapse scenario evaporates without an initiating event. The stiffeners are the Achilles Heel of the NIST conclusion. They are truly the “game changers” described by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. Many other engineers agree. This walk-off is a pure, unadulterated fantasy.
- kawika's blog
- Login to post comments
Not a Good Reflection
It's not a very positive reflection on our society that such obvious frauds persist.
Thanks, Kawika, and everyone who have been mining and documenting this farce.
The truth will out.
Good find!
NIST, being a part of the Department of Commerce is a US Federal Government agency, and to mislead/defraud the public in this way must be in some way, a violation of at least NIST's internal protocols. I would also guess that deliberately covering up, or misrepresenting data within a federal inquiry would be some kind of felony as well. This was clearly no accident. Are there any seasoned criminal lawyers around here who could enlighten us on this? I am not naive enough to expect any criminal charges from this, but it is just one more example in how the establishment has closed ranks, right across the board, to prevent the ruth from coming out.
Great work David
David Cole (kawika) was the person who found the Frankel drawings in 2012 that were released by NIST via FOIA request to architect Ron Brookman. It has taken a while for people to grasp the importance of this find.
David has an illustration where the plates are highlighted in red for the bottom drawing, but that would be overkill since the discrepancy is already so obvious. Imagine that for a sec, though...
I'm contacting Rethink911 about putting this up on their website.
The stiffener plates are also discussed in this Youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM
NIST on a plate, get them to court.
This issue may at first look like an obscure detail, but these are two major structural elements that are right at the heart of NISTs initiating event for the collapse of WTC7, and they're not a factor in NISTs analysis. Totally omitted. And they're right there on the structural drawings that NIST themselves gave us, and claimed to have used. These two plates take NISTs initiating event for the destruction of this building away from them, and that INVALIDATES their whole report. Kawika is literally offering you NIST in a court, on a plate. (or two)
Take the NIST WTC 7 report to court
could also be a slogan.
In my opinion the omission of these stiffener plates from the analysis of the WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis is the most solid evidence for a new investigation there has been to date. It is irrefutable that the stiffeners were omitted and that their inclusion in any analysis would render the NIST collapse initiation claim thoroughly impossible. Without their alleged natural initiation due to thermal expansion there can be no natural collapse of the building.
It is time for action to get the matter resolved and the truth of the matter brought out. Getting the NIST WTC 7 report invalidated, as it deserves to be for these types of things, will be a serious start in that vein and will lead to a new understanding of what actually transpired. The non-explanatory NIST WTC 7 report is standing in the way of a real investigation as it is being used as an excuse not to do one.
AE911Truth and NYC CAN are the best fund raisers involved in the fight to get a new investigation of what actually occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC, and they should be moving to fund a real and well organized legal effort. I believe they have educated more than enough people about the problems with the current official narrative so that there would be more than enough support for moving in the legal direction.
Note
Note: In this weeks episode on Andrew Steele's "911freefall" -- http://www.911freefall.com/ -- with Canadian engineer Gery Werner, Gery notes that in his investigation he was able to obtain some redacted "finite analysis" reports from NIST that apparently weren't fully redacted. He says that certain elements were given a "zero resistance value" which defies common sense. I'm thinking that if a legal case moves forward that this information could be verified and included in a lawsuit.
Close Enough for Comparison
It has been pointed out that the corrected version is not entirely accurate. This is true. It is not a CAD drawing.
I used a free drawing application that would not allow the plates to be made the same size, left and right. It was also pointed out that " the profile view has the plates slightly offset from the beam". If that refers to the side view, yes the plate was recessed 3/4" from the end of the girder.
But the whole figure that NIST used is not accurate and they had the blueprints for 18 months to work from.
Here are a few of the errors on the original Figure 8-21.
1. Girder not properly offset (slightly east) aligned with the column. The center of the column is supposed to be in-line with the girder web.
2. Girder end too far from the face of the column. It was actually inside the side plate overlap on the left.
3. Top clip is floating in mid-air on the elevation view. It was welded to the face of C79.
4. Column is not to scale. The flanges are 5" thick. Web is 3" thick. Side plates are 2" thick.
5. NO STIFFENERS.
I didn't get paid to bring this information to your attention. NIST got paid plenty to do accurate work. Please send your questions to them, (When they get back from their shutdown vacation). Please see this for convenient contact information.
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply
If you want to see sweet CAD drawings, check this out, Pages 7 and 8
http://journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
Layman analogies...
It can be easy to miss the dramatic significance of this, especially for the layman. I missed it on the first time through. The "forces" involved and transference of load. I think a broader number of people would gain interest if some analogies were done.
Analogies
Hopefully more people will come to this realisation. More and more people seem to finally be coming to an understanding of this information and realising the implications. Suggestions for analogies would be welcome, and I will work on getting that presented We really do have NIST banged to rights here. As a group, we have provided the evidence that could well be enough to reopen the WTC7 investigation, it is up to us all as a movement to find the means, and the will to take that evidence and see that it gets to the inside of a court. A chance to take NISTs initiating event for the collapse of this building away from them maybe won't present itself twice, and if we don't get behind this, we have only got ourselves to blame.
..as a group
Is there anything you want us readers to do?
If you need support to rally together certain organizations and or individuals you could maybe write up a small post with a list of email addresses that you want us to contact, and outline what you want said and done.
Phone/Email for Answers
Go right to the source. NIST knows what happened and why the stiffeners are not included in the report.
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply
disturbing answer
Looks like you have the official answer aka "I did not have ### with that woman":
"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."
NIST presents this without any arguments as a tiny little error that merits an erratum but does not affect the conclusion - #denial. So we know that they know.
I really doubt that either you or I is going to get further responses as I am sure that NIST does not want to open up any discussions, but I can try. In my humble opinion the best chance of success would be a letter from some of the ae911 members that also have AIA or FAIA credentials. Having a non-reply to that letter on record would be really good for the purpose of going to court.
Frankel 9114
It's important to show what the corrected version is actually based on. Frankel shop drawing 9114, 1091, 1083 etc.