Derek,
tfk said:
"I would appreciate it if you would stop the "Twoofie-annihilator" childishness, without me having to call on the moderators."
Now that's funny. Play nice Derek or I'm gonna tell... How about TSJREF knock if off with the said childishness? Nah, then it actually might morph into JREF instead of TSJREF. TSJEF has more entertainment value.
Had to look up your idiotic acronym.
You're suggesting that "his name is only occasionally 'James Randi'"...??
LMAO. You're as illiterate as you are innumerate.
By all means, keep up the name-calling. Be my guest.
It's always better, somehow, when the completely clueless cop a 'tude, too.
Another thing: this Mexican standoff doesn't move an inch ...
There ain't no "Mexican standoff", junior. The entire world's engineering community made its judgment about events years ago. We decided that twoofers are a bunch of hapless bozos.
But we also have a far, far harsher judgment on the likes of you. And Szamboti. Incompetent punk engineers who are so brain-dead, and eager to betray the dignity of their own profession, as to tell the public that we are all frauds, liars & accessories to mass murder & treason. (LMAO, why do you think that, other than signing some nebulous petition, 98% of the ae911t engineers are absolutely, 100% silent.)
I invite you, I plead with you, to continue on your one-man exercise in public self-humiliation & self-aggrandizement. You're already the buffoon. As your role becomes known, you'll also become a pariah amongst all the local engineers. Why do you think that all the other engineers at ae911t keep their heads down & out of sight?
Do you remember this comment you made about the help I gave you when this all started?
Post 267
I did use your points to scrub my mistakes from last time. Thank you sir.
LoL. You aren't close to "done scrubbing".
I'll be the one laughing as I watch from the sidelines.
Another thing: this Mexican standoff doesn't move an inch ... (remember, nearly all of this WTC 7 discussion is based on NIST computer models and NO TESTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - as you yourself admitted to recently) until you answer the questions in #1152, clear? You can do it, you're an engineer.
Are you completely brain-dead? "No tested physical evidence..."??
So, your considered opinion is that it isn't possible to do a meaningful analysis without "tested physical evidence"??
Gee, I guess it must be impossible to design anything, eh Derek? Ain't no physical evidence to do any analysis before you build the thing.
That must explain why all those planes (the F119, F22, F35, B2, A380, etc) all crashed the first several times they tried to fly 'em. Just no way to know what's gonna happen unless you have physical parts to test...?!!
Can't learn anything from videos, photos or seismic records, of course...
You really think that the only form of physical evidence is hunks of WTC7 metal?? Gee, I guess you must insist that your company do a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of testing on each shipment of raw material you use on each project. After all, what good are certs? They aren't "physical evidence".
I guess your conclusion is that there is no way for engineers to tell what happened to the Thresher. Or to the Spirit rover on Mars. After all, nobody has any of those parts either. Or, for that matter, any of the parts from WTC1 or 2 that initiated those collapses.
I guess that, without the actual parts that fail, all engineering forensic examinations are merely "guesswork", eh? With that attitude, it's comforting to know that you'll never lead any of those investigations.
Another thing: this Mexican standoff doesn't move an inch ... until you answer the questions in #1152, clear? You can do it, you're an engineer.
I've already provided you with my answers. There ain't no need to do it pointless calculations. This is one of the things that you learn thru your career: don't take on tasks that you don't need to. It's just a waste of time.
I have ALL the evidence that I need to know that the collapse of WTC7 did not violate any CoE considerations. And not one of those pieces of evidence requires the tedious manual calculation of buckling loads in a latticework structure.
But, here, let me elaborate a little further on your silly, silly questions in your prized post#1152 questions ...
2a. How did no energy dissipate from the WTC 7 columns? Explain this in terms of the Lagrangian energy theory. Tell me all about the dissipation term, please don't forget that ol' serpent in the garden.
Your premise is wrong.
It's wrong for the core columns because you have zero information about how long it took those columns to collapse.
It's also wrong for the north wall columns. And NIST says it's wrong. And I agree with them.
Remember these graphs?
NIST's graph:
Do you see that curve during Stage 1? And during Stage 3?
Those curves say that your premise MUST BE wrong.
Those curves say "LOTS of energy was dissipated during those phases of the collapse of the building.
Do you see the lack of an error analysis in NIST's & Chandler's work for Stage 2? Do you see the regression coefficient of R^2 = .9906?
Those considerations say that your claim that "no energy" was dissipated during Stage 2" is unsupportable. And that the most that you can say is "little energy was dissipated during Stage 2".
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along to you: "Little energy was dissipated during Stage 2 because buckling of the main support columns was not the principle failure mode. Fracturing of connections (bolts & welds) was."
tfk's graph:
See all that area above the red line & below the green line? All of that area represents energy that was dissipated during the collapse. Now, during my time equivalent of "Stage 2" (5.25 seconds < t < 7.50 seconds), the integrated sum of the difference between the red line & the green line shows a significant energy sink even during this stage.
You are invited to comment.
If you'd like to post your "Lagrangian energy dissipation" snake in the weeds, be my guest.
I've answered this question very simply: "Your premise is wrong."
If you want to dispute my answer, then it's your job to provide your own analysis.
Not my job.
2b. What were the critical buckling loads of the 24 interior WTC 7 columns? Assume w14x730 without built up, and then with the built up sections.
Meaningless question.
This could be done pretty easily for an isolated column in the undamaged building, given accurate statements of the nature & stiffness of the various constraints, and some assumptions of the loading geometries.
But that answer is irrelevant to the critical buckling loads of any column as a component of the lattice structure. As the loads on any one column increase, they will be shifted thru the structure to adjacent columns. And therefore, what might have been a critical buckling load to the individual column becomes less than critical to the column within the structure. Just part of the redundancy of intact structures.
The "isolated, undamaged answer" is also irrelevant to the buckling loads of fire-weakened or support-damaged or load-conditions-massively-changed columns.
No answer can be given to your question without a clear assessment of the damage, the constraints and the load state.
Too bad you're so sloppy in crafting your arguments, Derek.
2c. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads? Answer with and without respect to the built up sections, please.
Please translate this question from Gibberish into English.
2d. What were the critical buckling loads of the 57 exterior WTC 7 columns?
Same caveats above apply.
In principle, fairly straightforward to calculate. Made a bit tricky by the transfer trusses on the 7th (IIRC) floor.
But to get real buckling loads for the columns as part of the structure, that takes some FEA work.
As for the critical buckling loads WHEN THEY ACTUALLY BUCKLED ... well, that's a calculation of a very different order of magnitude. Especially when you're trying to define the actual loading conditions that caused the buckling.
2e. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads?
Gibberish to English, please.
3. ...How did those WTC 7 floor 13 framing beams both buckle and push the intersecting 79 to 44 girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat @ column 79? How exactly?
I can easily imagine how it could happen. But my imaginings are irrelevant, because they would be speculation.
NIST's imaginings wouldn't be speculation in the slightest, tho. It would be the direct result of their detailed analysis.
So if you are really, really, really super duper interested in the "how exactly" ...
... WTF haven't you asked NIST?
A simple question for you Derek.
Please don't evade it.
Not after I've gone to such lengths to answer all of your questions, simply, directly & in detail.
We will get to your "the column welds (breaks) and column bolts (breaks) dun it Derek" error later, which contrasts not only NIST
Wrong.
...but your own statements to me earlier in the year.
Wrong again.
You can't weasel from the lost energy that easy,
Wow. You're darn near illiterate, aintcha?
I said right there above, and re-iterate now, that I have all the evidence that I need to exercise my engineering judgment to assert with supreme confidence that there was no "lost energy" during WTC7's collapse.
See? I didn't weasel out of anything.
not to mention you just threw AISC under the bus with your error.
Your ignorance does not constitute my error. Or my "throwing anyone under any bus."
You stepped in it real good with that one buddy, way to go...everyone please give tap dance Tom a hand. He is amazing!
If you were literate, you might realize that "everyone give Tom a hand" is not the general consensus of the posters here.
Just an observation about "hearing what you want to hear"...
That seems to be something of a pattern in you.
tom
