 |
Structural engineering council (CTBUH) casts doubt on NIST’s WTC 7 Report.
9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.
The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:
Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)
The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200°C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550°C.
(Article continues below)
The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5
…
It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
connection to Column 79 Page 5
…
The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder
connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would
expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately
prior to collapse. Page 7
And NIST’s assertion that column buckling proceeded floor collapse:
We strongly believe that the initiating event was the
failure of the floor and the girder connections to the main column and that this
should be documented in Section 14.3.4. Page 7
…
The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. Page 10
However, the CTBUH also casts serious doubt on NIST’s entire thermal expansion fairy tale by suggesting that cooling was in fact taking place around the magical Column 79 at the time of failure:
It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column
79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle? Page 6
And questions NIST’s hypothesis about floor beams buckling both theoretically and with experimental data:
It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests. Page 6
Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:
The report is rather confusing because the floor analysis is considered in
Sections 8, 11 and 12. It would be better if there was a complete
reconciliation of the analysis models. Page 6
…
In these sections NIST states that the initial failure was caused by the failure
of the floor system, in particular the connections to Column 79, that led to the
column becoming excessively slender and buckling. These statements
contradict the summary section 14.3.4 that identifies the initiating event as the
buckling of Column 79. Page 7
But don’t expect the CTBUH to come out and endorse 9/11 Truth either:
The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings. Page 4
So, on the one hand the CTBUH provides at least three good reasons to dismiss the NIST report as a blatant fraud: (a) phenomenal shear-stud and bolt failure at Column 79, (b) cooling around Column 79 at the supposed time of thermal expansive failure and (c) mystical floor beam buckling. But on the other hand, the CTBUH ignores the blatant evidence of controlled demolition in WTC 7 for no technical reason what-so-ever.
(I do not include the CTBUH’s insistence that floor failure proceeds column failure as a reason to disregard NIST because the idea that either could cause any kind of a collapse that could be confused with a controlled demolition is plainly absurd).
It should be note the CTBUH chairman and lead author of its NIST WTC 7 Comments, David Scott, has some interesting conflicts of interest (as apparently do his co-authors):
He was in New York on 9-11, 2001 and witnessed the attack on the World Trade Center and was part of the SEAoNY engineering team that worked at Ground Zero to assist with the search, recovery and clean-up.
Following 9-11 he was extensively involved in the industry review of design standards and procedures for tall buildings in extreme events. He has authored papers on Fire Induced Progressive Collapse, and was a reviewer of the US Governments (GSA) design requirements to mitigate progressive collapse, that were issues in 2002. He also worked extensively with Daniel Libeskind on the WTC masterplan and his design for Freedom Tower.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
29 Responses to “Structural engineering council (CTBUH) casts doubt on NIST’s WTC 7 Report.”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 15th, 2008 at 5:03 am
uh… it was blown down with controlled demolitions. Hello?
October 15th, 2008 at 5:25 am
don’t let them shut us down again!
help us get on UK radio and expose the NWO!
http://www.myspace.com/TRUTHADDIKT
thank you!
godspeed
October 15th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Are we to ignore the rivers of molten steel flowing at the base for weeks after the collapse?
October 15th, 2008 at 6:09 am
No credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition? You mean outside of the fact that WTC7 resembles a controlled demolition in all the key areas of it’s collapse?
Ridiculous.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am
once again dismissal of the 911 truth movement without any technical argument. but i am pleased they refuted the NIST fairytale. unfortunately 2 or 3 competing official stories will not lead to a reininvestigation.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:35 am
This is just more BS. Why can we not have one of these organizations of scientists that can at least address the points made by the 9/11 truth movement? Mabye we ought to have a panel of foreign scientists who might be more independant have a look at this. The way that building 7 fell? Noboby can tell me that it’s anything but controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein said so himself. Same with towers 1 and 2. Explosions in the basement? Squibs shooting out of windows 30 stories below the collapse? Molten metal? Big peices of metal flying outward from the towers with white smoke streaming from both ends? Ya, nothing to see here folks… And that’s not talking about Shanksville or the Pentagon where nobody can produce any evidence that there was a plane at either site. I don’t know if anybody else feels like I do but I am sick and tired of this not coming out into the mainstream for serious questioning. Spread those movies around, this will come out and then mabye some of these clowns who put out these bogus reports will find themselves looking for new jobs, if they are not in court explaining why they were trying to change the laws of physics.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Solid rods turned to quivering snakes …. where have I seen that BS before ….
Ah well, anyway … Know how to tell when a zionist or abrahamic religionist is lying?
Just watch for lip movement or the lack thereof.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:49 am
NIST doesn’t exist. Engineering doesn’t exist. WTC doesn’t exist. Terrorists have always hurt us. We were always at war with terrorists. We will always be at war with terrorists. We’ve won every war on terror and we will continue to fight the war on terror forever. Its our fault.
We created global warming. We are all bad for breathing. We don’t deserve to breathe. 2+2=5.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:33 am
WTC7 = Las Vegas style controlled demolition, lock stock & barrel. How obvious can you get? How butt stupid do these “authority figures” think the lemmings are? Anyone who bothers to wake up realizes that history is written by the winners. That means most of what we learned in the past was false, a lie and deception. The whole American population is living in a false paradigm, a fairy tale existence. If only they would bother the learn the truth and then holy fuck. Talk about a reality check.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
The only time studs are a factor in structual integrity, is in wood framing,
such as a house where your baring partitions consist of wood 2 by 6’s or 4’s aka studs.
In commercial buildings steel beam structures are what hold the building up and give it their
structual integrity while steel STUD framing hold the dry wall.
The steel stud framing and dry wall, which also includes shaft walls are all fire rated by the hour. This means it is rated for how many hours before a fire gets through the wall.
But as far as I know the steel stud framing and studs have little to do with collapse.
Of couse NIST is catering to the people that already bought their other lies
and figure everyone else won’t buy anything they sell, might as well tell them anything
cause the are sheeple that swallow anything NIST will shove down their little sheeple throats
October 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The speed of collapse alone, conclusively, compelling, proves controlled demolition. Pysics can not be bought off. CBTUH is a distraction and should not obfuscate the evidential issues/questions which should be at the center of the debate of why the towers collapse. If they cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 they have their hands over their eyes, ears, and mouths like three monkeys, because there is overwhelming credible scientific evidence of controlled demolition.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The whole NIST team has failed to mention the fact that a New Yorker, around 5:15 in the afternoon, put out his cigarette against the northern face of the building. The intense heat of the cigarette, in combination with the pressure of its contact with the building, was far too much for the building to sustain, and subsequently we watched the building collapse.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
if you read the report that they give ,they say the following ..The council would make it clear that it sees no Credibility whatsoever in the 911 truth movement. we believe with the vast majority of tall bldg professionals that the failures at wtc 1,2.5,6 and 7 were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the towers.We have carefully looked @ the evidence the 911 ” truth movement ” presents and we cannot see any crediable scientific evidence of a controlled demo on wtc 7 or the other wtc bldgs.the council considers 911 truth as a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be @ the center of the debate.. what about larry silver stein cooments ” pull it “, 8 second collapse ,the countdown etc etc ,so wtf is going here???
October 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
#10 joe construction worker:
“The only time studs are a factor in structual integrity, is in wood framing,
such as a house where your baring partitions consist of wood 2 by 6’s or 4’s aka studs.
In commercial buildings steel beam structures are what hold the building up and give it their
structual integrity while steel STUD framing hold the dry wall.
The steel stud framing and dry wall, which also includes shaft walls are all fire rated by the hour. This means it is rated for how many hours before a fire gets through the wall.
But as far as I know the steel stud framing and studs have little to do with collapse.”
Never built many – ahem, ANY – steel-framed buildings, eh Joe? This is so wrong, so basically, fundamentally wrong, that sometimes I don’t have any doubt why professionals don’t want to even consider the points 911 Truth is trying to make.
We’re not talking cold-formed steel stud construction, basically like home wood-frame construction in homes except made out of rolled steel sections and available at your local home center and construction supply warehouses. No, the “studs” they are speaking of are so-called shear studs which connect the joists and girders to the metal floor deck and concrete slab in a composite floor system. They are essentially typically 3/4″ diameter rods that are welded to the flanges of the steel girders, using a special electronic welding “gun” like a riveter, through the metal deck and stick up vertically. The concrete slab grabs onto these studs when it’s poured.
They are in place for two reasons:
1. They serve to connect the concrete slab to the steel joist or girder below establishing composite action and increasing both the strength and stiffness of the floor
2. They provide shear transfer between the rigid diaphragm of the floor and the lateral resisting system of the steel frame, i.e. joists, girders, and columns. Lateral forces, i.e. wind and seismic loads, are transmitted in plane to the floors and then through the shear studs into the moment-resisting or braced steel frame and then ultimately down to the foundations. Basically, they tie the floor to the frame and are INTEGRAL to the stability of a steel-framed structure and most steel frames are classified as unstable until the floor system is installed.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.”
October 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
CTBUH IS A POS! (piece of sh-t)
Part of the cover-up and ‘distraction\contradiction’ unto itself…
October 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Either way, what do I care. Those buildings would’ve killed me.
It was me or them. I made some money on that deal.
Pull it, pull it, pull it, I’m the reaper not the culprit
why would I care or give a shit
I’ll tell ya though, the new freedom towers are killing me.
stupid karma.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another. One lie after another…
I think I’m beginning to detect a trend from these agencies…
If three buildings collapse in a way that completely contradicts the laws of physics, one might be tempted to become extremely suspicious.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
I was set up and knocked down.
I’d still be around if it was’nt for that demolition co.
One column took me down in such a symetrical manner? Really? Does the word topple mean anything?
Did you see the other wtc buildings that were closer to the twin towers, there was still significant amounts
of those buildings left standing, yet there was nothing left of me.Why?
That doesn’t puzzle you just a bit?
October 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The truth you seek will be revealed to all.
Just remain patient, it may not happen in this life.
Rest assured, it will happen.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Anyone slightly disturbed by these guys denouncing the ‘truth’ movement should send them a comment on their web site…oh what fun…
October 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Well since we have money to blow. Lets crash planes in building and see how long they burn til they actually fall. Oh wait they would have excuses for that too.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
They are just more ass-covering establishment shills. They are prompting NIST to do a better lie. They are on my list of the perpetrators, puppets, and pundits to be incarcerated under the RSA (The Reconstituted States of America).
October 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“They want a fascist planet with the superwealthy ruling it all
Since we’re too independent, America must be led to fall
When our credit’s been exhausted to subdue the Middle East,
They’ll install our debtor nation in the body of The Beast
Traitor…Dare call it treason”
–The Cornbread Mafia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw5dP5gy2Vs
October 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’m in a terrifying rage about this. I was gladly going along with the criticisms until I realised they didn’t actually match mine and then I had to dismiss them completely. It’s really not fair.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
EXPLOSIVES PUT IN WTC CONCRETE WHEN CONSTRUCTED
http://www.rumormillnews.com/c.....read=25146
The full thread makes for interesting reading, if not quite accurate here and there. I came across a scientist who was researching exactly this theory. Does anyone have that guy’s name?
I had an email from him but it’s vanished.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Keep up the good work!
They already cannot ignore the truth movement anymore…it prevails now and will prevail in the future.
Let the CTB-UHHH come up with their explanations, and those will also fail bigtime, just like NIST’s.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:50 am
This is total crap!!! Larry Silverstein said in an interview that they (both he and professional demolitionists) gave the go ahead to “pull” the building due to its hazardous nature after being hit by the rubble from towers 1 and 2. So how does this study justify not finding any creditable evidence to a demolition….THEY SAID THEY DID IT!!! WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED???
October 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
He didn’t say they decided to pull the building, he just said they took the decision to ‘pull it’ – most likely in reference to the fire service operation. He’s hardly likely to go on TV and confess to his part in a conspiracy especially when he has an outstanding insurance claim, is he?