• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
"Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse."

From, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm

So, what 'single initiating event' do NIST cite for the destruction of WTC7 ?
Click to expand...


Why aren't you knowledgeable enough to recognize that the word "model" in "Current model building codes" is a typo?

And that it should read "Current building codes do not require ..."
 
DGM said:
That quote does not support you in any way.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Correct - thank you! :)

I cannot express the system identification problem any simpler without writing out the answer - which I am not inclined to do for several reasons. The need to teach advanced structures being only one of them. :rolleyes:
 
gerrycan said:
Absolutley none of your business.
Click to expand...

'Tis a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Your baseless, anonymous claims impress no one. Go back to youtube, where you can get kewl comments from pothead videogamers.
 
gerrycan said:
"Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse."

From, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm

So, what 'single initiating event' do NIST cite for the destruction of WTC7 ?
Click to expand...

Umm.....
Fire?
 
gerrycan said:
I am willing to show you an animation. I cannot divulge the input data however. It just wouldn't be safe. Sorry. My humour is poisson.
Click to expand...


gerrycan said:
OK i tried that experiment you suggested. It burnt my hand :mad: you tricked me. But i do agree with you that steel conducts much better than concrete does. So why did NIST not let it conduct in their FEA model?
Click to expand...
Meh, no nothing truther is blustering around wildly in the dark making assertions about a subject he knows nothing about, not responding to legitimate questions and ignoring answers.

Well done gerrycan, you haven't broken the mould, but you sure have made par. A solid par.
 
Sunstealer said:
Meh, no nothing truther is blustering around wildly in the dark making assertions about a subject he knows nothing about, not responding to legitimate questions and ignoring answers.

Well done gerrycan, you haven't broken the mould, but you sure have made par. A solid par.
Click to expand...

I thought one so well learned might have aknowledged the poisson reference.
 
I figured it had more to do with bouillabaisse than probability distribution, so didn't get the joke. Still don't, actually.

ETA - bonne nuit.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
OK, before i go to sleep, what about an FEA competition to break the monotony. We can all guess what it stands for ok. I'll go first, and you lot can follow along.
Fool Everyday Americans....... Fast Enigmatic Animations.....Forget Every Actuality....... Freefall's Easy Actually....... you get the idea. Your turn, g'night.
Click to expand...

So you're a garden variety troll, ”wannabe engineer” edition.

Wow. Didnt see that coming.....
 
gerrycan said:
ok, try googling this - poisson "ANSYS"
Click to expand...

I don't do research by google. I'm familiar with poisson (french for fish) and poisson (probability distribution).

You have accomplished exactly what impact in the real world with your nonsense?
 
carlitos said:
I don't do research by google. I'm familiar with poisson (french for fish) and poisson (probability distribution).

You have accomplished exactly what impact in the real world with your nonsense?
Click to expand...

Sorry, i thought you were the guy who knew about ansys. must have been confusing you with another poster.
 
gerrycan said:
ok then, we have an open live, recorded debate on wtc7. we will find out who is ignorant. ok?
Click to expand...

Oh ****, this 'aught to be good. I'm certain TFK would send you crying to your mother. His knowledge of engineering is, IMO, one of the tops on this forum. There are some others, Ryan Mackey for one, that are just as good.

You'll get schooled like a 120lb linebacker trying to make it in the NFL.
 
gerrycan said:
OK i tried that experiment you suggested. It burnt my hand :mad: you tricked me. But i do agree with you that steel conducts much better than concrete does. So why did NIST not let it conduct in their FEA model?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. They let both steel and concrete conduct. They explain the methodology they used, based on component studies, on page 486 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.

ETA: Did you mean dynamically conduct during the model?
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Oh ****, this 'aught to be good. I'm certain TFK would send you crying to your mother. His knowledge of engineering is, IMO, one of the tops on this forum. There are some others, Ryan Mackey for one, that are just as good.

You'll get schooled like a 120lb linebacker trying to make it in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Come along then,you could even bring your favourite cheerleading outfit. :p
 
gerrycan said:
I think you can tell a lot about somebody by listening to their voice inflection, and in a fair and well moderated debate, the person who knows the subject best, and has the truth on their side usually wins.
Click to expand...

So, the person who speaks the best is the winner? Holy ****** **** this is the DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard!! LOL!

You cannot even answer 5 questions here!! WTF makes you think that you'd do ANY better in a live debate?

Hell, I am not even an engineer, and I bet I could beat you in a debate. You'd ask a question, i'd answer it, and cite my source. Then, I'd ask a question, and you'd ignore it, and talk about a monkey ******* a football. And your goldfish.

Since that is pretty much what you're doing here.
 
gerrycan said:
The right way is to include all the elements and allow steel to conduct.
Click to expand...

Just for SNG's, how much heat energy would the steel have conducted away from the girder?

Please quantify this, and show your work. Also, list any assumptions.

Thanks.
 
triforcharity said:
So, the person who speaks the best is the winner? Holy ****** **** this is the DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard!! LOL!

You cannot even answer 5 questions here!! WTF makes you think that you'd do ANY better in a live debate?

Hell, I am not even an engineer, and I bet I could beat you in a debate. You'd ask a question, i'd answer it, and cite my source. Then, I'd ask a question, and you'd ignore it, and talk about a monkey ******* a football. And your goldfish.

Since that is pretty much what you're doing here.
Click to expand...

WTF are you even talking about? I'd be happy to debate you, and at the end of the debate I would hope we both could learn something, and come away from it better for the experience. I'm in this to get to the truth, and if the cost of that is losing a debate, then so be it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom