Again.
Gerrycan, if you knew how to read drawings and blueprints, you'd understand. You see that IBeam, bolts, and the plate inside the red circle you have drawn? Do you see how they are all drawn with DASHED LINES instead of SOLID LINES? That means that those three elements are already pre-existing and that they are not part of the truss in question. The draftsperson is showing that that the truss is to be FIELD BOLTED to the IBeam assembly that will be there already.
That's what's so funny! If you undrstand construciton drawings and blueprints, you's understand that it ISN'T bolted to itself. As I have stated numerous times, the dashed lines represent ANOTHER element/assembly that is NOT PART of the main truss being drawn.
Ok?
The problem, which you fail to grasp even after "2 weeks of BS", is that you are using 1964 drawings of a truss that are incorrect. I have proven to you time and time again. Until you provide the actual stamped construction drawings for th trusses, you will be kept in the dark.
Yup.
Maybe explaining this like a bedtime story will help you. I'll explain the drawing below:
Again, that element in red is not from another truss. That element in red is an angle that is welded to the upper angle chord of the truss in question. That vertical angle has a plate attached to it so it will be FIELD BOLTED to the ALREADY EXISTING IBEAM FLANGE in addition to the bottom chord being FIELD BOLTED to the plate sticking out from the web of the ALREADY EXISTING IBEAM.
Or 5/
...is completely unfounded because you are using drawings of long/short span trusses from a 1964 booklet instead of actual stamped construction drawings and comparing those INCORRECT 1964 truss drawings to make comparisons to the trusses used in NIST's model.
With all due respect, the trees make up the forest - the tree in question is the topic.
incomprehensible?
What's important is the data that the model is based on.
Without inputs and access to data, which is the case for NIST's WTC7 model for example, then it is EXACTLY "holywood CGI". An animation. The fact that the graphical representation of the model looks nothing like observed events, along with the obvious errors and omissions does not inspire confidence in NIST's attention to detail as far as their unpublished inputs and data are concerned.
The difference is that the bottom chord of the truss was bolted onto a plate on one variant of the 2 truss types. Given the distance of the chords from the core columns it becomes clear that there was a truss running along the core perimeter perpendicular to the trusses framing into the core by way of it. Trying to minimise these errors and downplaying their potential implications for NIST's hypothesis will not change the fact that their model is clearly flawed. Weber who designed the trusses didn't put different ends on them for no reason.
NIST's work does not stand up to scrutiny, and their analysis does not include the collapse itself within it's scope, but rather the events leading to initiation of collapse. They have misrepresented the floor system entirely and to consider it as only an element bridging the core and perimeter is a serious error on their part and yours, given the amount of reinforcement at the transition from core to office space, and also the continuity of the slab from the office space into the core area of the building.
