 |
| NIST WTC 7 Fraud |
9/11 Blueprint Fraud
September 28th 2015 at 15:17
Dear Mr. Cole I got a reply from Albury Smith.. I will be the go between..
From Albury Smith
Hi Dan-
Those so-called "critical structural omissions" were as follows:
-Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.
-12" bearing vs 11" is only 1/2" e.w., it was the value used in the NIST input data, and 11" was only a typo in NCSTAR 1A.
-The three W12 X 19 beams were only there to stiffen that one spandrel beam, and were ~50' to more than 60' away from the Col. 79/Girder A2001 connection.
- I also asked you why Cole, Brookman, and these other 9/11 "experts" haven't run their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA FEA with these "critical structural omissions" included in their input data.
Your comment is still there; my replies to it were both removed by Ms. Alexander, an alleged 9/11 "truth-seeker." (I saved this one just in case)
From Albury Smith
Hi Dan-
Those so-called "critical structural omissions" were as follows:
-Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.
-12" bearing vs 11" is only 1/2" e.w., it was the value used in the NIST input data, and 11" was only a typo in NCSTAR 1A.
-The three W12 X 19 beams were only there to stiffen that one spandrel beam, and were ~50' to more than 60' away from the Col. 79/Girder A2001 connection.
- I also asked you why Cole, Brookman, and these other 9/11 "experts" haven't run their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA FEA with these "critical structural omissions" included in their input data.
Your comment is still there; my replies to it were both removed by Ms. Alexander, an alleged 9/11 "truth-seeker." (I saved this one just in case)
I certainly should not have to remind Mr. Cole that real experts would already have run ANSYS & LS-DYNA models with these minor structural elements included in their input data, or that attacking someone else's work product does nothing to establish any other hypothesis, but please feel free to send him my comments on these "critical structural omissions," as they're called in Dr. Pepper's letter to Todd Zinser at Commerce:
http://www.
September 28th 2015 at 19:39
Dan,
Albury wrote this:
-Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.
The key to the stiffeners is that they strengthen both the web and bottom flanges. NIST's failure mode was in the flange. When they got caught they obfuscated by saying they weren't necessary for the analysis because there was no web crippling. Duh. Circular argument.
Keep thinking critically.
Dave
Albury wrote this:
-Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.
The key to the stiffeners is that they strengthen both the web and bottom flanges. NIST's failure mode was in the flange. When they got caught they obfuscated by saying they weren't necessary for the analysis because there was no web crippling. Duh. Circular argument.
Keep thinking critically.
Dave
September 28th 2015 at 19:23
Hello Dan,
No the article did not mention the stiffeners, but they are the factor that defeats the initiation hypothesis. You'd have to ask Ms. Alexander why she chose to not mention them. Probably too technical for the average reader.
Albury fails to recognize that the spandrel beam stiffeners would also stiffen the G3005 beam and in turn work against the girder buckling.
I am not an engineer, just a layperson who knows how to read blueprints.
Albury Smith is someone who argues endlessly defending the NIST report, even though they have been caught several times making serious errors. Ask yourself why Albury would feel the need to do this.
The reason no FEA has been run is money. But stay tuned.
We are way off the subject: The NIST reports were used in court. Donald Stahl contacted me about learning more. If you want in on this discussion please let me know. I really don't have time for other things right now.
Thank you,
Dave
No the article did not mention the stiffeners, but they are the factor that defeats the initiation hypothesis. You'd have to ask Ms. Alexander why she chose to not mention them. Probably too technical for the average reader.
Albury fails to recognize that the spandrel beam stiffeners would also stiffen the G3005 beam and in turn work against the girder buckling.
I am not an engineer, just a layperson who knows how to read blueprints.
Albury Smith is someone who argues endlessly defending the NIST report, even though they have been caught several times making serious errors. Ask yourself why Albury would feel the need to do this.
The reason no FEA has been run is money. But stay tuned.
We are way off the subject: The NIST reports were used in court. Donald Stahl contacted me about learning more. If you want in on this discussion please let me know. I really don't have time for other things right now.
Thank you,
Dave
From Albury Smith (Who Did not reply above question)
Reply
The author of the article where you questioned me is still removing my replies to you, but I'm hopeful that your friend Mr. Cole will reply to my comments. If you'd like, here are 2 recent disqus links to similar discussions that aren't censored by deceitful 9/11 "truth" aficionados, and I'll be notified directly if you use the "Reply" link to any of my posts at either one: http://www.mintpressnews.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment