Tag(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group

Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (124 comments)

NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear Studs

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)      
Become a Fan Become a Fan

opednews.com

The NIST Final Draft on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 has many flaws, including blatant fraud.

::::::::

 By Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns

 

In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would they do this?  To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory.  This is how it goes:

1.                  The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.

2.                  Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.

3.                  Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004   NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders .

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

 

August 2008   NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**.  Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for  [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders.

http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008   NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

 

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud.  Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

 

*NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1164/figure124ic1.jpg

** "on center" - a term that means "apart"

 

I have been researching the FEMA and NIST reports on WTC 7 for the last two years. The first clip in this video is what got me involved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0#GU5U2spHI_4

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
124 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Very good investigating Chris by Kenny on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM
And that's not the only obvious fraud. by Harold Smith on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM
Check out these videos Chris by Dan Koch on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:17:15 AM
Check out these videos Chris by Dan Koch on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:59:10 AM
Typical nonsense from the 9/11 "truth movement" by albury smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:20:34 AM
LOL! Well, look who's talkin' about "nonsense"! by Harold Smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM
Well said Harold by Alan Murphy Smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:34:49 PM
More nonsense from the 9/11 "truth movement" by albury smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:12:00 PM
LOL! You haven't a clue what you're talking about. by Harold Smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:36:46 PM
Since there's nothing more to be said, by albury smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:50:50 PM
That's a good one by Nordic on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:01:58 AM
LOL! Here you go with the debris pile nonsense again! by Harold Smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:10:30 AM
All cleared up by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:50:04 AM
ROTFLMAO! by Harold Smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM
No thanks by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:49:17 PM
I guess the point went over your head? by Harold Smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM
Please explain by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:59:09 AM
Explanation by Alan Murphy Smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:39:59 PM
I just had a good laugh by albury smith on Monday, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:01:32 PM
Nice work Albury by Arthur Scheuerman on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:11:18 AM
Thanks, Arthur by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:11:11 AM
Additional considerations by Nordic on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:20:56 AM
Incorrect assumption by Chris Sarns on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:06:54 AM
If NIST is guilty of fraud, by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:24:41 AM
A conclusive case by Chris Sarns on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:40:03 PM
re: A conclusive case by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:02:33 PM
Fraud by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:55:16 AM
::YAWN:: by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:09:48 AM
Denial and Doubletalk by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:49:00 PM
re: Alleged Denial and Doubletalk by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:02:07 PM
correction by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:34:42 PM
We agree, one of these statements is false. by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:12:48 PM
Let me rephrase that by albury smith on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:12:10 AM
See Educating albury by Chris Sarns on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:16:29 PM
Figure 12-16? by albury smith on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:33:12 AM
As if Aurthur isn't a shill as well by Alan Murphy Smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM
Alan Murphy Williams by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM
Here's another lie by Ms. Smith referring to Arthur by Alan Murphy Smith on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:02:01 PM
Comparisons by Nordic on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:18:25 AM
re: Mainila shelling by Alan Williams on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:44:20 AM
Enlarging a bit by Nordic on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:59:01 AM
You're also stretching the truth a bit by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:26:02 AM
Answers by Nordic on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM
Reason for getting involved by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:46:47 AM
Reason for reconsidering your premise by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:59:50 AM
Implosion by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM
Let me simplify this for you, Chris by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:02:52 PM
Fraud by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:13:30 PM
Prove the fraud allegation by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:49:14 PM
Which "truth" are we to believe? by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:06:49 AM
Earth to Chris by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:39:34 AM
Get your facts straight by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:46:31 PM
My bad by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:27:17 PM
See Educating albury by Chris Sarns on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:18:14 PM
"I'm not a "government apologist," by Alan Murphy Smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM
Correction by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM
uninformed perspective by Alan Williams on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:42:37 PM
Blind Faith by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:00:53 PM
Actually... by Alan Williams on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:46:15 PM
Really? by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:35:19 PM
You stupid fool you... by Harold Smith on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:01:55 PM
None are so blind by Chris Sarns on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:13:02 PM
CHRIS by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:02:43 PM
To clairify by Chris Sarns on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM
A real clarification, since you're just repeating yourself by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:50:56 PM
Conflicts by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:18:37 AM
How many times does this have to be explained to you, Chris? by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:50:54 AM
What are you doubting? by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:28:09 PM
YOU'RE doubting MY honesty? by albury smith on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:27:14 AM
See Educating albury by Chris Sarns on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:15:31 PM
High School Physics-NIST flunks the course by Lance Ciepiela on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:55:14 PM
If this happened by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:12:41 AM
Old Albury Smith Post by Alan Murphy Smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM
$$911????? by Alan Williams on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:31:26 AM
Mind-boggling, innit? by albury smith on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM
Educating albury by Chris Sarns on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:11:05 PM
Correction by Chris Sarns on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:21:37 PM
Whether by albury smith on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:04:16 PM
Ask and ye shall receive by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:08:13 AM
I didn't ask to be deliberately misquoted by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:26:43 AM
Administration appologist by Chris Sarns on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:04:20 AM
Still waiting, Chris by albury smith on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:09:16 AM
Selective criticism by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:46:26 AM
Trying to educate Chris by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:34:50 AM
Denial and omission by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:11:58 PM
You're denying or omitting by albury smith on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:58:58 PM
Essentially free fall - S. Tower tilt by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:01:36 AM
You're busted, Chris by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:14:20 PM
You missed something by Chris Sarns on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:57:13 AM
So did you by albury smith on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:39:05 AM
You are still missing the point. by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:14:03 AM
The point is that you want to stall, evade, and obfuscate by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:45:08 AM
Greening - Fatal omission by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:18:02 AM
Correction by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:06:24 AM
Greening - Fatal Flaw by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:17:17 AM
Save our ears -- use thermite by Alan Williams on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:31:50 PM
Why bother? by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02:43 PM
What a stupid thing to say by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:58:00 PM
Who should we believe? by Chris Sarns on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:18:18 PM
Jennings and Hess by Nordic on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:04:24 AM
Hess and Jennings by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:22:53 AM
Re: Hess and Jennings by Harold Smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:15:21 PM
Sure, Harold by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:15:44 AM
I guess anything's possible in your delusional world. by Harold Smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:32:05 AM
My scenario by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:45:51 AM
OK, just stay ignorant by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:46:42 PM
Denier-in Chief by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:27:29 PM
Roberts by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:36:58 PM
You see in others what you are yourself, a liar. by Chris Sarns on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:48:40 AM
Give it up, Chris by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:02:35 AM
Further evidence that your "theory" is nonsense by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM
albury by Chris Sarns on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21:03 PM
CHRIS by albury smith on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:05:20 PM
See "To Clarify" by Chris Sarns on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:23:01 AM
Denier-in-Chief by Chris Sarns on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:18:17 PM
See This New Footage or North Tower and WTC 7 by boomerang on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:53:19 PM
Good one by albury smith on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:44:40 PM
Freefall? by Chris Sarns on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:57:45 AM
My point by albury smith on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:30:41 AM
FYI NIST FAQ's by Chris Sarns on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM
What you find relevant is downright funny by albury smith on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:57:20 AM
See Educating albury by Chris Sarns on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:20:16 PM
Correction by Chris Sarns on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:27:50 AM
Why see "Educating Albury," by albury smith on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM