911TAP Feature Article-- WTC7 Evaluation
kawika Sat, 09/23/2017 - 9:48am
Nice, detailed elaboration of Professor Hulsey's 6 SEP Presentation, including a much improved video with pointers. This new version will open this information up to a greater audience.
- kawika's blog
- Login to post comments
Silverstein's catch-22
A pdf companion-piece to Wayne Coste's write-up (that is linked to above) is: http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf.
The document page numbers match up, it appears, with the 06Sep2017 presentation slides and their respective numbers. The pdf text and images are very clear.
BTW the Weidlinger report, mentioned on slides 49-50, is at http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf.
Even a non-engineer can see, whilst reading parts of the Weidlinger report, a catch-22. Namely, Larry Silverstein needs Weidlinger to demonstrate a well-built WTC 7, whereas NIST must produce for Silverstein a WTC 7 made of spaghetti, so to speak.
Weidlinger thus claims extraordinary temperatures (750 C), purportedly based on a 2010 thermal analysis by a Dr. Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates. (See p 50 of the Hulsey pdf.) Beyler's thermal analysis, however, has apparently not been made public. (Sounds familiar.) (Even here, one remembers "free fall says it all"--that is, the manner in which the building fell, after collapse initiation, requires further human agency.)
Much Thanks to Wayne H. Coste PE for the write-up at the 911TruthActionProject site. https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/700-professor-hulsey-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study. Coste's highlighting of slides 67-69 is helpful: "Slides 67 to 69 are the bombshell slides. They show that the NIST assumption – that the exterior columns in the northeast corner were fixed and immovable (necessary to create the results of the thermal expansion central to NIST's progressive collapse hypothesis) was inappropriate. Without this assumption, the floor assembly thermally expanded in a direction opposite from what NIST forced their model to show. The result of allowing the structure to expand freely, resulted in minimal stress throughout the floor assembly. "
Slide 32
Actually, slide 32 is where NIST's theory of collapse initiation stops dead in its tracks.
http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf
If you give NIST almost everything they claim,
1. East wall infinitely stiff, immovable
2. Four hours of heating
3. Beams shear studs broken
4. Shear studs non-existent on girder A2001
5. Beams G3005, A3004, B3004, C3004 and K3004 heated to 600C
6. Beams expand due to heating, pushing girder A2001 to the west
6. Girder stiffeners not necessary because they pre-determined no web crippling
girder A2001's web cannot move far enough across the bearing seat at C79 because the 1.8" overlap of side cover plates on C79 lock the girder in after only ~3.7" of westerly travel.
NIST originally concluded that the beams could push the girder west 5.5". Once this happened, they claimed, the eastern bottom flange of girder A2001 would fold upwards and the girder would crash onto the F12 slab.
In June 2012 after they were forced to correct their claim that the bearing seat was just 11" wide, they revised the 5.5" to 6.25" citing typographical errors [never explained where the extra beam expansion came from],
Hulsey's team proved there is simply no way for the girder to walk off the bearing seat.
Without this the following NIST theorized events CANNOT take place:
1. Girder A2001 impacts the floor 12 slab, unseating a similar girder supporting F12, which falls to F11, causing a chain reaction all the way down to F6.
2. C79 becomes laterally unsupported for eight stories
3. C79 buckles
3. C79 drags down all eastern floors from F14 to the roof.
4. A westerly progression of floor collapses ensues, leaving the exterior shell without support
5. The exterior shell collapses at free fall acceleration (for the first 2.25 seconds) as seen in the videos.
COULD NOT HAPPEN.
FIRE COULD NOT DO IT.
Therefore something else did it.
Yes
and both the 5.5" and the extension to 6.25" are cases of NIST choosing quantities to fit preconceived "answers." The change--of course--came from an increase in the requisite quantity for the (emended) preconceived answer. Yikes! Talk about bad science. It's a microcosm of their whole WTC 7 collapse evaluation.
What you do is appreciated, and what AE911Truth does is appreciated. Thanks for not letting NIST get away with this.
There is more
Like the fire fighter at Ground Zero said, "This ain't done yet."
There is much more that can be done. All that is necessary is a little bit of focus, concentration and regular cooperation.
We've got a wide, solid foundation to build upon.