Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Ape of Good Hope]

Nice try there, no cigar. Not biting - stop trying to move the goalposts and try focusing on the issue at hand.

Your entire argument is an attempt to move the goalposts

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just out of curiosity, how much force was being applied to that girder in your pretty little picture? Did you actually load it up to see if it fell off because, oh, I don't know, an entire floor's worth of weight was resting on that tiny little sliver of hot steel? If you're seriously trying to tell me that that tiny little overhang would hold up the floor, I'm not buying it.

 

[gerrycan]

Your entire argument is an attempt to move the goalposts

Broken record. This is about the veracity of NISTs report, not providing an alternative. Their report is in error, they have admitted as much. You just don't like that reality, but of your inability to address it does not change it..

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The "gameplan" was to prove that NIST made serious errors and omissions. Game over -they admitted it. Now they need to produce an analysis that accurately represents the connection.

No they don't.


And the gameplan, as we all know, is to focus on unimportant micro-details in a futile attempt to drum up interest in a moribund movement.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Did NIST omit the stiffeners? Admitted
Did NIST confuse 11" with 12"? Admitted
Have NIST dealt with the consequences of these admitted errors and omissions? NO
And neither have you.

Do they have to? NO

Because it does not change the conclusions. And you have not proven that it does. Prove that, and then you have standing to claim "NIST must fix it."

 

[gerrycan]

No they don't.


And the gameplan, as we all know, is to focus on unimportant micro-details in a futile attempt to drum up interest in a moribund movement.

The same details that NIST were compelled to half address with an erratum statement?
They need to deal with the consequences of their admissions.

 

[gerrycan]

Do they have to? NO

Because it does not change the conclusions. And you have not proven that it does. Prove that, and then you have standing to claim "NIST must fix it."

Do you not think that NIST should account for the elements that are present in the drawings in their analysis?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The same details that NIST were compelled to half address with an erratum statement?
They need to deal with the consequences of their admissions.

No they don't.

You need to deal with this:

 

[thedopefishlives]

Do you not think that NIST should account for the elements that are present in the drawings in their analysis?

No, I don't. Because unlike you, I have experience in computational modeling and the purpose of simplifying assumptions. I know why NIST omitted some elements (and included some others; you don't seem nearly as concerned about that, I wonder why?), and I also understand that they don't matter a hill o' beans to the final conclusion.

 

[gerrycan]

No they don't.

You need to deal with this:

[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/the-evidence-v2_zps834af7e0.gif[/qimg]

So it is ok with you not to account for present elements in an FEA.
Nice pics though, thanks for that. Very detailed work on your part.

 

[LSSBB]

No they don't.


And the gameplan, as we all know, is to focus on unimportant micro-details in a futile attempt to drum up interest in a moribund movement.

The Truther "Wedge Document"

 

[gerrycan]

No, I don't. Because unlike you, I have experience in computational modeling and the purpose of simplifying assumptions. I know why NIST omitted some elements (and included some others; you don't seem nearly as concerned about that, I wonder why?), and I also understand that they don't matter a hill o' beans to the final conclusion.

So you are comfortable enough with NISTs conclusions to agree that this girder would fail if pushed 6.25" ?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

So it is ok with you not to account for present elements in an FEA.

Yep, I'm fine with that.

Nice pics though, thanks for that. Very detailed work on your part.

Cheers*, here's another:

The red circle shows where you and Tony are in relation to the general thrust of the evidence.






*can't take credit for the first image I'm afraid, just the second.

 

[Animal]

No, I don't. Because unlike you, I have experience in computational modeling and the purpose of simplifying assumptions. I know why NIST omitted some elements (and included some others; you don't seem nearly as concerned about that, I wonder why?), and I also understand that they don't matter a hill o' beans to the final conclusion.

The problem is you are not sticking to gerrycan's game plan....."just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is".

What he fails to comprehend is they did not get the report wrong nor should they redo their analysis....hence the hamster on a wheel effect.

 

[gerrycan]

The problem is you are not sticking to gerrycan's game plan....."just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is".

What he fails to comprehend is they did not get the report wrong nor should they redo their analysis....hence the hamster on a wheel effect.

So are NIST lying when they say that they omitted the stiffeners?
Are they lying in their erratum statement also?
How far would the girder need to be pushed to fail?

 

[thedopefishlives]

So you are comfortable enough with NISTs conclusions to agree that this girder would fail if pushed 6.25" ?

I don't know if the girder would fail if pushed 6.25". What I do know is that if you set a steel building on fire and a bunch of floors bracing a long column collapse, that fire-weakened and unbraced column will buckle and cause the building to start falling down. And that is the whole point of the NIST report, which seems to have passed you by completely in the rush to NIST-pick your way into proving the "official story" wrong.

 

[gerrycan]

I don't know if the girder would fail if pushed 6.25".

It wouldn't. NIST say it would. You "don't know" yet you defend it.

What I do know is that if you set a steel building on fire and a bunch of floors bracing a long column collapse, that fire-weakened and unbraced column will buckle and cause the building to start falling down. And that is the whole point of the NIST report, which seems to have passed you by completely in the rush to NIST-pick your way into proving the "official story" wrong.

I will wait for you to edit this.

 

[thedopefishlives]

It wouldn't. NIST say it would. You "don't know" yet you defend it.

I will wait for you to edit this.

Unlike Tony S., I do not make a habit of editing my posts during the edit window. I write what I mean.

 

[gerrycan]

I don't know if the girder would fail if pushed 6.25".

Let's keep in mind that you "don't know"

What I do know is that if you set a steel building on fire and a bunch of floors bracing a long column collapse, that fire-weakened and unbraced column will buckle and cause the building to start falling down.

This alleged floor collapse being caused by an event that you "don't know" about.

 

[jaydeehess]

The stiffener plates are above the bottom flange of the girder. You are not even talking about the correct element.

I am fully aware of the stiffener plates you are obsessed with. However in the fea the seat itself was treated as infinitely stiff, incapable of failing. Its a point that has been raised before. So your new fea would treat the seat in a more realistic fashion I must assume.

The CTBUH asked the question re the plates while the report was out for public comment and well before the structural drawings were made public. So you are totally wrong.

No, I am not, as the CTBUH has absolutely rejected any conspiracy conjecture that the fires were not responsible for the collapse nor have they done anything other than suggest that IF the fea is redone, that there be some modifications.
In short, no one other than AE911T is demanding a do-over.