Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

[A W Smith]

Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.

I think his problem with other engineers stems from his work at a Canadian nuclear plant where he was trying to point out the cause of corrosion in some coolant tubes. he was ignored and from what I gather marginalized by other staff engineers and management. The experience left a bitter taste in his mouth and from then on became an outsider. he now looks upon staff engineers and old boys network with a jaundiced eye. What I found peculiar about him was his jeckyl/hyde behavior particularly on fridays. he may even have a drinking problem.

 

[RedIbis]

Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

 

[boloboffin]

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

Excellent strawman. I particularly like the way you pretend that Wildcat is trying to discredit Greening's paper in any way whatsoever by relaying the information and riffing on Greening's quite evident dual posting nature. Very persuasive.

 

[SDC]

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

This from a fellow who appears to base his dismissal of the physical evidence of the 93 crash on the basis of not liking how a photo looks. Bold, Red I.! Well-researched! And yada yada.

 

[Profanz]

I think his problem with other engineers stems from his work at a Canadian nuclear plant where he was trying to point out the cause of corrosion in some coolant tubes. he was ignored and from what I gather marginalized by other staff engineers and management. The experience left a bitter taste in his mouth and from then on became an outsider. he now looks upon staff engineers and old boys network with a jaundiced eye. What I found peculiar about him was his jeckyl/hyde behavior particularly on fridays. he may even have a drinking problem.

Well take a gander at the cold hard facts in that there post. How do you debunkers do it? Because from the looks of that and most of the idiotic comments left here day after day I would say it is Greening who has obviously left a bitter taste in the mouths of the so-called skeptics and critical thinkers here at JREF. He certainly has you all nailed for what you are or more importantly what you aren't.

 

[beachnut]

Well take a gander at the cold hard facts in that there post. How do you debunkers do it? Because from the looks of that and most of the idiotic comments left here day after day I would say it is Greening who has obviously left a bitter taste in the mouths of the so-called skeptics and critical thinkers here at JREF. He certainly has you all nailed for what you are or more importantly what you aren't.

It appears some people can look at 2+2, and when Greening says 7, we know he is wrong or quibbling, without having to teach you math or give a more detailed explanation.

 

[Profanz]

It appears some people can look at 2+2, and when Greening says 7, we know he is wrong or quibbling, without having to teach you math or give a more detailed explanation.

I'm sorry beachnut. Would you say the illustrations posted a few posts back that were offered up by NIST equate 2+2=4? Who the hell witnessed that live or on video?

 

[Profanz]

double

 

[mrbaracuda]

What do you have to say about Greening's comments, Profanz? Anything? Or just parrot it or hold it up in troofer fashion?

I for example would like the whole business with the fire and kg/m² explained to me, as I have not progressed enough in the NIST report, nor am I very vested in these physics things.

 

[rwguinn]

http://b.imagehost.org/0813/Clipboard01.jpg

That's the screenshot he's having a problem with. You can find it in NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 on page 255.
And here's the full text:



I can see some deformation in this video:



But I am tired and on my way to bed.

I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.

 

[ktesibios]

So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results? It isn't to produce photo-realistic pictures suitable for a coffee table book?

Gee, who'da ever thunk it?

 

[DC]

I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.

And what scale did they use?

 

[DC]

when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?

 

[Corsair 115]

So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results?

This sort of thing often happens with NASA photos, with colours enhanced or altered so as to make more visually apparent certain features within the photo.

 

[DC]

Normaly i do use Scales in Deformation simulations, because normally i have to deal with displacements that are indeed so small you cannot see them in a 1:1 scale.

but in a totaly collapse of a building like WTC7 you will see the displacement also with 1:1 scale.... or there is something wrong with your FE sim.

 

[AZCat]

when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?

Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".

 

[DC]

Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".

and where in the WTC7 report can i find that "not to scale" note ?

of what use is the whole simulation if we dont know the scale or even if it is in scale or not?

 

[DC]

Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".

how usefull is his visualisation when you do not know how much the deflection is?

 

[Heiwa]

Even better would be to have a CD of the LS-DYNA output at every stage of collapse demolition (Chapter 12 of the NIST WTC7 report) so you can zoom in and see all the failures that occur in the right order and then identify the elements/nodes involved, displacements and forces at those failures. The scale can be adjusted accordingly.

Of course the LS-DYNA FEA model has >3 million elements and >3.5 million nodes and at every failure you have to recalculate the 'new' model to find the next failure. Big job!

You should also be able to superimpose the model at every failure with the intact model prior 'collapse', to see where elements/nodes have moved since the initiation, etc.

I am quite curious to see the condition after the last failure, i.e. when all the rubble is on the ground and where the >3 million elements and >3.5 million nodes are then. As LS-DYNA keeps track of everything, the last failure condition should represent the rubble heap 100%!

On photos you see some big assemblies of elements/nodes on the ground where the columns have been cut off and it would be interesting to know when/how those failures occurred. LS-DYNA should give the answers.

 

[mrbaracuda]

and where in the WTC7 report can i find that "not to scale" note ?

of what use is the whole simulation if we dont know the scale or even if it is in scale or not?

You really need them to put a label up saying 'Guys, guys, this is not the real scale of a 47 story skyscraper in this PDF'?

Now much about you makes more sense.