A third problem is that NIST's claim that steel beams expanded enough to cause such damage is dependent on a finding of its computer simulation, according to which the shear studs connecting the steel beams to the concrete floor slabs failed because the steel beams expanded further and more quickly than the concrete slabs. This was a surprising
result, given the fact that steel and concrete, when heated, expand virtually the same amount. The result becomes less surprising, however, when we learn that NIST, while running its simulation, "heated" only the simulated steel, not also the simulated concrete, even though an actual fire in the real building would have heated the actual concrete as well as the actual steel. It was only through this chicanery, evidently, that the simulation predicted the failure of the shear studs.
A fourth problem involves a second instance of fraud involving shear studs. NIST's finding in its computer simulation that the girder connecting Columns 44 and 79 failed is dependent on its claim that, although shear studs were used to connect the beams to the floor slabs, they were not also used to connect the girders to the slabs. But NIST's Interim Report on WTC 7, released back in 2004, stated that shear studs were used to connect the girders (as well as the beams) to the floor slabs. Once we are aware of this and the previous three problems in NIST's theory of how the global collapse of WTC 7 began, we can see that it is completely unworthy of credence.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (Kindle Locations 3241-3250)
Griffin, David Ray (2012-12-30))
