WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[tfk]

The right way is to include all the elements and allow steel to conduct.

You say this because you've never done an FEA.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

In a PROPER FEA, the cement floor SHOULD be considered to have no thermal expansion, and the steel floor pan SHOULD be considered to tied to the cement & have no thermal expansion.

You don't know why, because you don't know about FEAs.

PS. LMAO. You're not going to answer any questions, are you?

Explain to me, please, why anyone should bother answering your questions.

 

[GlennB]

What makes you think i work with ae911? 1600 great minds, and brave true patriots too i would add, ....

You just lost every vestige of respect you might have had around here.

Gage??? He of the cardboard boxes? Are you serious?

 

[GlennB]

The collapse was very even. Is that better?

No, it's meaningless unless you define your terms.

 

[gerrycan]

You say this because you've never done an FEA.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

In a PROPER FEA, the cement floor SHOULD be considered to have no thermal expansion, and the steel floor pan SHOULD be considered to tied to the cement & have no thermal expansion.

You don't know why, because you don't know about FEAs.

PS. LMAO. You're not going to answer any questions, are you?

Explain to me, please, why anyone should bother answering your questions.

Are you saying that in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored?

 

[jaydeehess]

absolutly astounding that gc will argue about the heat conducted by the steel pan but have no figures about how that would affect the expansion calculations
that he will quibble about less than an inch of expansion
AND
also stand by a patently incorrect statement claiming symmetric collapse.
It does not indicate objectivity

 

[gerrycan]

absolutly astounding that gc will argue about the heat conducted by the steel pan but have no figures about how that would affect the expansion calculations
that he will quibble about less than an inch of expansion
AND
also stand by a patently incorrect statement claiming symmetric collapse.
It does not indicate objectivity

what kind of figures would you like, Other than going to ANSYS itself. Or maybe you should take a closer look at how ANSYS deals with conductivity and thermal expansion of steel and concrete generally.

 

[Gamolon]

The collapse was very even. Is that better?

So you think that the east mechanical penthouse collapsing in to the building, progressing west, then followed by the what remained, an even/symmetrical collapse?

 

[NoahFence]

Not at all. I am interested in this topic and would be as respectful as you were. Please dont judge me. Also, guinness is irish, i am scottish.

I know Guiness is Irish.

I'm Irish and Scottish. I get drunk and wear skirts.

At any rate, WTC 7 could not have been a controlled demo. It is impossible.

 

[jaydeehess]

you mistake me for someone who disputes the validity of ignoring the steel pan

that is your position, YOU back it up with figures rather than waving your hands

 

[Sunstealer]

They did calculations, computer modeling, and analysis that led NIST to believe that the girder left it's seat. Are you telling me that the ONLY thing NIST shows or discusses in their report for this to happen is lateral expansion of a floor beams that pushed the girder west off it's seat?

That's it?

Is that what you have an issue with?

This is what I don't understand about truthers. They seem to want to reduce a complex system down to one isolated phenomenon. In this case the thermal expansion of a single beam. However, having read the NIST NCSTAR 1A, it's readily apparent that it is the system, as a whole, that is analysed.

 

[gerrycan]

you mistake me for someone who disputes the validity of ignoring the steel pan

that is your position, YOU back it up with figures rather than waving your hands

do you mean in terms of how ansys should have been configured?

 

[DGM]

do you mean in terms of how ansys should have been configured?

No. In terms of how it effects the whole system.

 

[gerrycan]

No. In terms of how it effects the whole system.

OK i agree there, but NIST extrapolated localised results to the whole system. they fudged the ANSYS inputs, and thats why they wont release them. Even when you compare like with like, the results they got just dont add up. What they should have done was use 6 different stages of temperature in their model, but they did not. They should have allowed the steel and the concrete to thermally conduct, AND the steel pan, despite what your allegedly learned friend says.

 

[DGM]

OK i agree there, but NIST extrapolated localised results to the whole system. they fudged the ANSYS inputs, and thats why they wont release them. Even when you compare like with like, the results they got just dont add up. What they should have done was use 6 different stages of temperature in their model, but they did not. They should have allowed the steel and the concrete to thermally conduct, AND the steel pan, despite what your allegedly learned friend says.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you how you reached these conclusions. What expertise do you draw on?

I know you hate this question but, it is very relevant.

 

[jaydeehess]

The fea does calculations that are set using accepted engineering formulae

You here are concerned with only one aspect, the amount of heat not conducted to the beams because of the steel pan
You should therefore be able to address exactly how much that would affect expansion for at least two exampples of ambient temp at ceiling height of the 12th floor and scrap the handwaving you are using

 

[NoahFence]

OK i agree there, but NIST extrapolated localised results to the whole system. they fudged the ANSYS inputs, and thats why they wont release them. Even when you compare like with like, the results they got just dont add up. What they should have done was use 6 different stages of temperature in their model, but they did not. They should have allowed the steel and the concrete to thermally conduct, AND the steel pan, despite what your allegedly learned friend says.

gerrycan -

Simplify this for me. I read that post and my brain gets all mush. It's all greek to me.

"ANSYS Inputs don't add up"
"6 different stages of temperature"
"concrete thermally conduct, steel pan...blah blah blah"

I see a 110 story building collapsing on a 47 story building, causing gashes in the building here and there, and a fire that pretty much engulfs the entire buildling. I see firefighters saying hours beforehand that it is going to collapse, based on their real-time observations of seeing it bulging, and hearing it creaking and moaning. Then I seen the building collapse, and what I don't see is a single surprised face.

I also see other things happening that day, and i put them all together to paint the picture.

In your world, how is Shanksville connected to WTC 7?

I can draw that line very easily. Can you?

 

[gerrycan]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you how you reached these conclusions. What expertise do you draw on?

I know you hate this question but, it is very relevant.

ok, because that is how ANSYS works, and that is the program that they used. The defaults would have worked better than the settings that they used. In an ideal world more than 6 temps would be better, but if they were doing a decent job, they would have used 6. They used the same coefficient for the steel pan as they used for the concrete. That is something that they would have to go in and change. Why would they do that?

 

[DGM]

ok, because that is how ANSYS works, and that is the program that they used. The defaults would have worked better than the settings that they used. In an ideal world more than 6 temps would be better, but if they were doing a decent job, they would have used 6. They used the same coefficient for the steel pan as they used for the concrete. That is something that they would have to go in and change. Why would they do that?

Why wouldn't they? You're the expert, right?

I have four SE's that I work with on a regular basis. They see no problem with NIST's work. Should I punch them in the face and call them shills? I respect these guys'.

 

[triforcharity]

What a train-wreck of logic he presents.

I have a now image explaining Truther logic.

Enjoy.

Yeah, pretty much sums it up.

 

[gerrycan]

Why wouldn't they? You're the expert, right?

I have four SE's that I work with on a regular basis. They see no problem with NIST's work. Should I punch them in the face and call them shills? I respect these guys'.

No, punching them in the face would be stupid. Get them to look at NISTs work, and also at how ANSYS works. Ask them if conductivity should be set to zero in a FEA model and if steel pans should be considered as concrete instead for any reason. Let me know what they respond with.