'What about building 7'?

[tsig]

Where's the explanation as to how the girder framing into c79 from the west manages to push the column to the east, and what is more managed to do it without damaging its connections at all at either end. This should be addressed.

It didn't know how to read a compass.

 

[gerrycan]

I don't know. I'm not aware of this problem.

Strange. You exhibit all the symptoms of a sufferer.

The NIST has supplied all the data needed to support their conclusions.

It took them years after the publication of their report to release the drawings for the building. With no drawings to compare NISTs interpretations and guesses with, how could anybody judge the accuracy of their report??

The "they don't expose their data" is a red herring. I've got to wonder, Why do you think your arguments have gained no traction with relevant professionals? You can't deny you have no audience in the relevant fields.

You have no clue what audience this evidence has. You have no clue what traction it has gained among professionals and none of us has much clue what data NIST inputted to ANSYS.
What is clear is that NIST did not accurately analyse the building in terms of failures bars and failed to account for crucial elements in connections that were at the centre of their hypothesis.

 

[beachnut]

... walk off.

Some people here owe gerrycan an apology.

You and gerrycan owe and apology for failing to defend your CD fantasy. Spreading lies of CD, explosives and thermite; when will you apologize for the anti-intellectual claptrap and weak attack on NIST.

Drop everything NIST did, who needs NIST? You do to back in CD. But fire did it, you can't support your CD theory due to massive lack of evidence, so you make up BS about NIST which does not matter. You don't get it.

If you and gerrycan spent the time you have been bashing NIST on trivial BS on your own theory, you would not be stuck believing the dumbed down fantasy of CD. Maybe, you could figure it out; but based no the lack of logic and evidence you apply to the BS attack on NIST, you might not be able to figure out your CD delusion is that.

CD is the fantasy. Why can't you support your theory directly? Are you using the same propaganda technique of gerrycan, the "new approach".

When will you guys do some engineering and science? How will you use WTC 7 CD fantasy to support your WTC 1 and 2 CD fantasy? Pentagon CD fantasy; and what about flight 93, how does that dovetail with the nonsense you can't explain, your CD fantasy? The old forest and tree comes to mind, and you guys are not in the forest, you are on planet x...

 

[gerrycan]

Looks like 79. The framing is totally different on 81.

Here is the drawing for 79 and 81 connections...

You seriously think that of the two connections, 79 looks most like this.......

Really?

 

[gerrycan]

I could check, but it's not worth my time. What's the point. Fire collapsed WTC7 not explosives.

Yeah, why go and check stuff and migrate to an evidence based conclusion when it's so much easier to just trust NIST and retain a faith based belief.
Fire may well have collapsed the building, we won't know until an accurate model has been validated to have proved this to be the case, but IF fire indeed collapsed the building, it didn't do it as per NISTs explanation.
I have yet to see an explanation that in any way proves that fire collapsed WTC7.

 

[pgimeno]

Correct! Thank you for your humble and sharp observation. Chapter 11 of NIST´s report on Building 7 only says that this displacement of column 79 happened in the 3.7 to 4 hour slot of the simulation, and chapter 11 says elsewhere that the 44-79 girder walked off the seat during this same general time slot.

Correction: the time frame for column 79 displacing is 3.5 to 4 hours; the time frame for the girder walk-off is 3.7 to 4 hours. The latter is not mentioned as a time frame for the column movement. Based on that alone, the probabilities are reversed with respect to your belief.

This has given the impression that the displacement of the column could have aided the walk off event, but NIST does not actually say that, anywhere. And more specifically, when you read the summary of the walk off event in chapter 11, you will see that NIST does not specify this displacement of the column as a factor in the walk off event.

Any rational person would infer that the conclusion is: in order to know for sure, ask the source (NIST).

The most obvious explanation is that the 44-79 girder walks off the seat before the column is displaced. Gerrycan seems to have another explanation for why NIST did not specify this as a factor in the walk off scenario. I don´t know which one is correct, but that is not really the main issue. All we have to know is that this column displacement was not a factor in the walk off according to NIST.

Lack of mention does not imply denial. You keep trying to consider them guilty unless proven innocent. I take the opposite approach.

Pgimeno, as for 1) it is NOT a possibility, and gerrycan has not wasted time accounting for this non-sense because this is not NIST´s theory in any shape or form. And what´s more it is not possible according to NIST´s data, which shows the beam closes to column 79 (and all but one beam) still connected to the girder, which means this leverage story is a total fantasy conjured up on this forum.

I "conjured up", as you say, that explanation when looking for ways in which ANSYS could have showed walk-off as NIST reports it did. Again, assuming innocence as a premise, rather than starting with the conclusion that the report is flawed and walking backwards trying to find mistakes at all costs, which is the truthers' approach.

And as for 2) - as you have correctly noted - NIST does not say this displacement of the column was a factor in the walk off scenario. It is not likely that this displacement happened before the walk off, because NIST does not include it as a factor in the walk off. Had it occurred before the walk off, NIST would obviously have specified it as one of the factors leading to walk off.

I can see reasons to not do it. Why don't you ask them rather than jumping to the conclusions?

Some people here owe gerrycan an apology.

Who, and why?

 

[pgimeno]

It was more than was warranted.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32620&stc=1&d=1425431431[/qimg]

Does this look like the column 79 girder connection to you, or does it look more like column 81 ?

And here is gerrycan gish-galloping to the next chapter to muddy the waters a bit more.

 

[Reactor drone]

Here is the drawing for 79 and 81 connections...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32621&stc=1&d=1425434039[/qimg]

You seriously think that of the two connections, 79 looks most like this.......

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32622&stc=1&d=1425434039[/qimg]

Really?

Yes, the girder is attached at almost a 90° angle at 79 rather than the sharper angle at 81 and the surrounding members are in the correct position. Is it a photo realistic depiction of the connection? No, but it seems to be a perfectly good way to represent it in LS-DYNA. I also don't think column 79 looked like a perfectly flat sided brown stick either but it's a good enough LS-DYNA representation.

 

[gerrycan]

And here is gerrycan gish-galloping to the next chapter to muddy the waters a bit more.

So you think that the depiction from NIST is more like C79 or 81?
It's not a trick question. Pick a number.

 

[gerrycan]

Yes, the girder is attached at almost a 90° angle at 79 rather than the sharper angle at 81 and the surrounding members are in the correct position. Is it a photo realistic depiction of the connection? No, but it seems to be a perfectly good way to represent it in LS-DYNA. I also don't think column 79 looked like a perfectly flat sided brown stick either but it's a good enough LS-DYNA representation.

Don't you see anything wrong, like the underseat plate being 90 degrees out, or the 2 plates shown in 9114 missing?

 

[BasqueArch]

Yeah, why go and check stuff and migrate to an evidence based conclusion when it's so much easier to just trust NIST and retain a faith based belief.
Fire may well have collapsed the building, we won't know until an accurate model has been validated to have proved this to be the case, but IF fire indeed collapsed the building, it didn't do it as per NISTs explanation.
I have yet to see an explanation that in any way proves that fire collapsed WTC7.

This proves you didn't read my post or if you did you didn't understand it or if you understood it you are misrepresenting it and can't disprove it. "It's not worth my time. What's the point" proven.
Look in the mirror, faith based belief is the domain of conspiracists.

 

[pgimeno]

So you think that the depiction from NIST is more like C79 or 81?
It's not a trick question. Pick a number.

No, I have no interest in the next chapter until the issue of the east displacement of the column isn't settled. You've already shown signs of having ignored the arguments put forth, by repeating your mantra of the missing elements that only according to you are so very important. So it is clearly not yet settled.

 

[gerrycan]

This proves you didn't read my post or if you did you didn't understand it or if you understood it you are misrepresenting it and can't disprove it. "It's not worth my time. What's the point" proven.
Look in the mirror, faith based belief is the domain of conspiracists.

Are you talking about people who conspire to carry out illegal acts, or those who believe that such people exist? I am comfortable with the latter, as are you, and everyone else who does not believe that 911 was carried out by one person acting alone.

 

[gerrycan]

No, I have no interest in the next chapter until the issue of the east displacement of the column isn't settled. You've already shown signs of having ignored the arguments put forth, by repeating your mantra of the missing elements that only according to you are so very important. So it is clearly not yet settled.

The East displacement, if it did occur, happened AFTER the girder failed.
You're not so much ignoring that, as getting it backward in terms of even NISTs sequence of events.
I think the debate should move onto something that at least you can use NIST to try and argue against.

 

[MileHighMadness]

So gerrycan, is the ANSYS analysis linear or non-linear? How was the structural elastic modulus modified for changing steel temperature? How are you differentiating between critical and non-critical elements? Should these connections be modeled as shear or full moment connections?

 

[BasqueArch]

Are you talking about people who conspire to carry out illegal acts, or those who believe that such people exist? I am comfortable with the latter, as are you, and everyone else who does not believe that 911 was carried out by one person acting alone.

Al Qaeda and 19 religious fanatics. Faith based True Believer fools.
Are they who you are thinking of?
No. I didn't think so.
You're on the wrong side of reason.
A waste of time

And you didn't read or answer my post did you.

 

[DGM]

Strange. You exhibit all the symptoms of a sufferer.

I have no idea what this means

It took them years after the publication of their report to release the drawings for the building. With no drawings to compare NISTs interpretations and guesses with, how could anybody judge the accuracy of their report??

Consult with competent engineers.

You have no clue what audience this evidence has. You have no clue what traction it has gained among professionals and none of us has much clue what data NIST inputted to ANSYS.

Actually we do, they explained their justifications and data sources along with reasoning.

What is clear is that NIST did not accurately analyse the building in terms of failures bars and failed to account for crucial elements in connections that were at the centre of their hypothesis.

According to who? You really need to qualify this assertion. AE 911 has no engineering chops to speak of. Who are these engineers? Why can't they convince others?

 

[gerrycan]

So gerrycan, is the ANSYS analysis linear or non-linear? How was the structural elastic modulus modified for changing steel temperature? How are you differentiating between critical and non-critical elements? Should these connections be modeled as shear or full moment connections?

You have a lot of questions about ANSYS.
First of all, do you agree with me that "load balance" is a good a 2 word summation of optimising convergence in such an FEA ?

 

[gerrycan]

I have no idea what this means

I agree.

 

[DGM]

I agree.

Explains why the engineering world pays so much attention.

Why do you think that is?

ETA: context to his "I agree":

Whatever it is, it's not a defeat.
Trying woefully to defend an inaccurate analysis for which there is no input data would be a defeat. How does it feel?

I don't know. I'm not aware of this problem. The NIST has supplied all the data needed to support their conclusions.

Strange. You exhibit all the symptoms of a sufferer.

I have no idea what this means