Topic: NIST Report
Part of the NIST Report claims that when WTC towers collapsed, and I disagree with their Part of the NIST Report claims that when WTC towers collapsed, and I disagree
with their findings. Part of their report can be seen at
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Their report states:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is
premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers
(the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter
columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses”
integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST
investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed
perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward
bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and
pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to
cause a pancaking phenomenon.
As a point of interest, the diagram shown above has the Corrugated Metal
Decking going in the wrong direction.
To my recollection these items referred to as Main Trusses are what we called
Purlins *(See note below). And they sat on the Horizontal I –Beams that were
connected to the Vertical I-Beam Columns, and they were on Slide Plates and
were not solidly welded or bolted to the beams, but were used as expansion
joints and the surfaces that supported were free to slide as they were heated
or cooled, to prevent the finished floor from buckling when the temperature
changed. They were not welded because as any metallurgist or Ironworker or
other tradesman who normally works on or with Structural Steel knows, you must
not make any welds across the grain of a beam whether on the face or within
the web, as this would weaken the beam, (Unless supplemented by a Diagonal
Fillet Piece) therefore any and all welds must run in the direction of the
length of the beam Therefore they were not physically connected to the perimeter
beams and could not have pulled them in as stated in the report. But would have
just slid off the beams allowing the floor to collapse, but allowing the main
Structural Steel Columns and connecting beams to remain standing. In deference
to what the report says, the purlins are supported by the slide plates setting
on the horizontal beams and do not contact to the vertical columns in any way
The second question I have is it is obvious to me that these so called experts
never had to remove the fireproofing from a Beam or Column to weld on a Pipe Hanger
Bracket or attach Sch.66 Hanger Clips. It does not just fall off (Unless it is
totally saturated by water) but must be removed by hand, but this report implies
that the Airplane striking the building caused virtually all of the Fire-proofing
in the whole structure to fall off. (That assumption is preposterous and was made
to try to lend some credence to the findings of this so-called investigation) If
that were the case any use of a Pneumatic Jack Hammer in the building would cause
the fireproofing to fall off, but any construction workers knows that is not the
case.
Another question I have is that the Boeing 767 has Wing tanks that contain jet
fuel in the amount of 11430 liters, or about 3000 Gallons of fuel contained in the
two wing tanks. ... and the Wings never went into the building
· These Trusses or Purlins are made by using two angle iron at the top and two
slightly shorter angle irons at the bottom with a flat side facing up on the top and
down on the bottom. These angle irons are connected by welding them to a long iron
rod that been bent in a zigzag fashion, making the finished product a series of
triangular connections between the sets of angle irons. And as anyone who ever
studied geometry knows the triangle is one of the strongest most rigid forms of
construction. So the finished product is fairly lightweight and can support a great
amount of weight without bending the way a single piece of steel might.
It was at the last minute I noticed the direction of the corrugated decking, as
the way it is shown in this diagram, would sag as soon as they started pouring the
concrete. The corrugations are in the direction of the length of these sections and
are the reason they have the stability and will resist bending. Therefore to use the
strength of the corrugated decking the corrugations should be perpendicular to the
supporting frames and not parallel with them as they are in the diagram.
So in my estimation, as a Get Your Feet Wet Construction Worker for over 30 years,
the so called Expert who drew this diagram has no knowledge of how the construction
materials to pour the floor sections were laid out and how the concrete was poured
when the building was built, so much for their Expert Testimony. And that level of
naivety and stupidity can be found throughout this whole report. As throughout the
report they are making a point that is appropriate for that particular situation,
and are continuing to use that fact as if it pertained to the entire structure, which
it does not. A case in point, in the beginning of the report they state that when the
aircraft crashed into the area of the building the force of the impact knocked off the
fireproofing near the site of the crash. That part I can understand, but then they
imply that all of the Fireproofing in the entire building has been knocked off and that
is why the fires that went throughout the entire building heated up the steel till it
lost its strength, and that implication is nothing but Bullshit.
The Fireproofing may possibly have been disrupted as far as 50 feet from the point
of Impact but hardly beyond that. And even that would not have exposed the bare steel
columns and beams as they are either encased in concrete, or they are enclosed within
a Brick, Plaster or Sheetrock encasement with a few inches of dead air space. So to
heat up the columns the fire would have had t burn away the Brick, Plaster, or Sheetrock
first, and none of those items will burn or support a flame, (because the fire code
says so) before the steel was available for the fire to heat it up. But apparently these
expert scientists are so wrapped up in their theories and theorems and calculations they
have never observed that in an occupied High Rise Building, the steel superstructure is
not visible to the naked eye, but enclosed. By the way those enclosures that hide the
columns would also be able to hide the explosive charges that would be needed to slice
off the columns in a controlled demolition. You must also remember from watching the TVs
during that day, as almost all of us did, the fire was not throughout the building, but
confined to four or five floors surrounding the point of impact. It is also a well-known
fact that heat rises, so how could the heat travel down 800 feet to the lower levels. I
am not too sure, but I think you will find a table that tells us that laterally and
downward the temperature from a fire decreases as to the square of the distance, so the
temperature from the fire to a point 800 feet below would be about 1 / 640,000 th of the
temperature of the fire. Now lets see, Jet fuel burns at 1120 degrees Fahrenheit divided
by 640,000 I think that rounds out to about 1/10 of 1/100th of a degree at ground level
not even enough to toast a marshmallow.
.
Posted by rj06042
at 8:24 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 29 September 2006 2:11 AM EDT
