• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BasqueArch said:
Sad that you guys have no evidence that fire did not collapse WTC7 and instead propose evidence-free CD. The issue is that NIST never said the beams expanded 5.5" or 6.25" . They said that girder C79-44 failed due to lateral torsional buckling. The issue is that you selectively quote mined CTBUH and that you guys have proven structural engineering incompetence and that it's a waste of time to argue about these matters because reason has nothing to do with what you wish to believe.
Click to expand...

You can't show where I have misquoted the CTBUH, because I haven't. They were introduced to this thread by those of your ilk, who mistakenly believed that they concurred with NIST re girder walk off. They dont, and to have given the impression that they did is misrepresenting their view on NISTs supposed girder walk off.

the question to LSSBB still stands
Which computer analysis were you referring to and what calculation?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Which computer analysis were you referring to?
Click to expand...

The whole shmear. I concede I don't have a specific citation for that though.:D I also don't see where they applied an estimate.:mad:


I do say however that they developed "models" they said they applied. I do not see anywhere that those involved specific 'estimates' or even calculations. I was hoping you would show me, since I am always willing to learn. I looked over the NIST report several times, and I still fail to see precisely what section you are trying to pinpoint.
 
LSSBB said:
The whole shmear. I concede I don't have a specific citation for that though.:D I also don't see where they applied an estimate.:mad:


I do say however that they developed "models" they said they applied. I do not see anywhere that those involved specific 'estimates' or even calculations. I was hoping you would show me, since I am always willing to learn. I looked over the NIST report several times, and I still fail to see precisely what section you are trying to pinpoint.
Click to expand...

The arbitrary distances for where walk off would be deemed to have occurred have been quoted to you from NISTs report.
You claimed that these calculations were done inside of the ANSYS FEA, and cannot cite one single piece of text to support your assertion because you are plain wrong. You were repeating an error that pgimeno made earlier.
Now you are just imagining stuff that you wish had happened, but didn't.
Again, these walk off distances were calculated outside of ANSYS then applied to the model, and NOT as you have claimed done inside ANSYS. If you have read the report "several times" as you claim and still do not realise this, try reading it again. Slowly and carefully.

ETA Given that you can't even read this thread properly, and repeat basic schoolboy howlers of errors made by your buddies, why would one think that your comprehension would suddenly improve when reading the NIST report?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
The arbitrary distances for where walk off would be deemed to have occurred have been quoted to you from NISTs report.
You claimed that these calculations were done inside of the ANSYS FEA, and cannot cite one single piece of text to support your assertion because you are plain wrong. You were repeating an error that pgimeno made earlier.
Now you are just imagining stuff that you wish had happened, but didn't.
Again, these walk off distances were calculated outside of ANSYS then applied to the model, and NOT as you have claimed done inside ANSYS. If you have read the report "several times" as you claim and still do not realise this, try reading it again. Slowly and carefully.

ETA Given that you can't even read this thread properly, and repeat basic schoolboy howlers of errors made by your buddies, why would one think that your comprehension would suddenly improve when reading the NIST report?
Click to expand...
I didn't say a inside ANSYS FEA. Where do you show them doing the calculations?
 
LSSBB said:
I didn't say a inside ANSYS FEA. Where do you show them doing the calculations?
Click to expand...

So in which computer program were you claiming the calculations to have been done?
You were mistaken, just admit that and let's move on.

You were GUESSING, and you GUESSED wrong.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I don't have any evidence I was wrong. My answer is essentially that they did it "somewhere else". Do you have a citation they " estimated"?
Click to expand...

DEEMED to have failed.

What more do you need to get it into your head? Seriously.
 
LSSBB said:
That's a general statement, not the specific scenario we are discussing. I want to know where for your "walk-off" quibble they say they do an "estimate". If you know the report better, you should be able to do so, right?
Click to expand...

See the above quote from the report which is one of many which illustrate that the inputs carried over to LSDYNA were ESTIMATES.
I am not trying to be in any way offensive here, but is english your first language?
ETA I am asking if there is a genuine language difficulty here, I can't think of much else to attribute your lack of comprehension to.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
In terms of girder walk off, which is what is being discussed I want to put a narrow focus on, in order to lose focus on the big picture, which is that CTBUH agrees with NIST's conclusions,
Click to expand...
FTFY.

gerrycan said:
You need to quote what the CTBUH actually said instead of paraphrasing them in a way that suits your assertions, which as you can see below, they clearly do not concur with.
Click to expand...

CTBUH said:
-The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder connection to Column 79.
Click to expand...
It's obvious their concern is the failure of the connection. That's why they ask if fin plate or end plate connections would have helped.

You still haven't admitted your mistake confusing end plate connections (that CTBUH mentioned) with web stiffeners (which they didn't mention). Or so many other mistakes you've made in this thread, for the matter.

You know that quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte (probably apocryphal), that says "In politics... never retreat, never retract... never admit a mistake"?
 
pgimeno said:
FTFY.




It's obvious their concern is the failure of the connection. That's why they ask if fin plate or end plate connections would have helped.

You still haven't admitted your mistake confusing end plate connections (that CTBUH mentioned) with web stiffeners (which they didn't mention). Or so many other mistakes you've made in this thread, for the matter.

You know that quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte (probably apocryphal), that says "In politics... never retreat, never retract... never admit a mistake"?
Click to expand...

No, the fact that NIST were asked to look for any additional elements on the girder leaves them no excuse for not seeing the plates that were there on the drawings.
Maybe you could explain COMBIN37 to LSSBB?
 
gerrycan said:
No, the fact that NIST were asked to look for any additional elements on the girder leaves them no excuse for not seeing the plates that were there on the drawings.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. They already acknowledged that these plates were deliberately not considered. And you are still dodging admission of your mistake regarding the end plate connections.


gerrycan said:
Maybe you could explain COMBIN37 to LSSBB?
Click to expand...
You are just failing to see his point. He is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom