'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

I don't see how that addressed the post.

There are pages of this thread confined to ANSYS which I have contributed to.
You mean you haven't been watching, or even interested enough to catch up with where the discussion is?

 

[gerrycan]

If you're having trouble there's a great pdf you could read. LSSBB has a link for it, or you could just use the first thing that pops up on a google search instead.
You see what I did there Jay ?

 

[beachnut]

There are pages of this thread confined to ANSYS which I have contributed to.
You mean you haven't been watching, or even interested enough to catch up with where the discussion is?

Where is your paper on show NIST is wrong? Is this all you have, BS questions?

When will you support your CD fantasy with some engineering stuff? Are all your engineering skills from GoogleU (you keep saying google this, google that, is that where your were fooled with the CD fantasy from 911 truth, google)?

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf

Are you the 911 truth supporter who brought up CTBUH, and forgot they say fire did it, the big picture. You have to have NIST to exist, unable to explain in detail what your CD theory is. Why? Are you unable to do more than simile and Gish Gallop on NIST. Where is your evidence for CD?

How will your Gish Gallop failed attack on fire did it, answer the OP?

... -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

What is the additional energy source in your fantasy CD theory, which you support with the "new approach" playbook?

Why does CTBUH not support the fantasy of CD? Why does 911 truth void of engineering support for CD?

 

[LSSBB]

You should ask ANSYS for a transcript of the lecture that i pointed you towards. It's more current, less staid and by somebody who knows ANSYS a hell of a lot better.
Maybe you could also ask ANSYS if their program is linear or non linear.
Nah, don't bother with that, they just wouldn't answer you and you would look less than bright for even trying.

I never claimed to be an expert in ANSYS. I didn't even ask you about linearity.

I do know computational modeling, however. In it's many forms.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That's funny. What political motive could you possibly believe me to have regarding this? Please enlighten me... this should be good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms--he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse...He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated--if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

 

[gerrycan]

I never claimed to be an expert in ANSYS. I didn't even ask you about linearity.

I do know computational modeling, however. In it's many forms.

Really. So who was this telling me I was wrong about ANSYS ?

Wrong, try again.

Here's another post with you lecturing after an answer to a question about ANSYS

Yay, you've found a procedure definition (reference, please)!

In this instance for this particular algorithm, the residual (also sometimes called "error") is set to a difference between external and internal loads. What are the internal loads, and what are the external loads? What would cause them to not be in balance?

And again.....

ANSYS is an algorithm. You found how they measure the residual for each iteration until it finds an acceptable solution. It is using the delta between what it defines as internal forces, vs what it defines as external forces. Why do you think they would not "converge" on any particular iteration?

And then there's this, where you wrongly compare a 2 word answer I gave you about balancing ansys models.....

Yes, because you defined solution convergence as load balancing, whereas in the algorithm used by ANSYS, the solution converges when the load balances. Understand now?

On reflection you are correct. You don't present yourself as an expert in ANSYS.

 

[gerrycan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics

I think you're being a bit hard on Pgimeno there.

 

[beachnut]

I think you're being a bit hard on Pgimeno there.

Projection; like your "new approach", useful for propaganda, but not fire science and engineering.

You have a paranoid conspiracy theory based on BS, a fantasy CD done by people you can't name. A CD theory you can't give details, and have no evidence for.

13 years, no evidence from you and 911 truth. Stuck posting in conspiracy theories section here, not current evidence, not science, but where skeptics discuss how 911 truth fails to use evidence, and fools followers with BS.

Do you have a paper summarizing anything to support your CD theory?
Can you help deets with the OP?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think you're being a bit hard on Pgimeno there.

.
You shouldn't ask questions if you don't want the answers.

 

[WilliamSeger]

To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.

In other words, as mentioned several times, the game plan is to lead potential cult recruits into the fallacious reasoning that if NIST got something wrong, then it must have been magical silent, fireproof explosives.

I don't think anyone here would be surprised if better analysis led to a different "probable cause." The general point being argued is that "truthers" aren't really doing that; they're just playing games.

 

[newton3376]

Originally pgimeno posted this (highlights added by LSSBB later):

No. Standard engineering practice requires omission of some elements sometimes. You should know that by now. Let me quote a few examples:

Break elements were used on the east side of Floors 7 to 14, where the fires were dominant prior to collapse. Including break elements at every connection location on these floors would have greatly increased the model size and affected the rate of solution convergence. Since the collapse of WTC 7 clearly initiated on the east side of the structure (Chapters 5 and 8), the break elements were only used in the east side of the model.
​

(NCSTAR 1-9 pp. 457-458)

A procedure was developed for addressing buckled and/or failed components so that any member that did not structurally contribute to the response of the building was removed from the analysis to improve computational efficiency and avoid convergence problems. This procedure was used to modify the model at the end of each 30 min interval, or as necessary when the analysis halted due to non-convergence.
​

(op.cit. p.487)

In the ANSYS analysis, buckling of flexural members led to convergence difficulties. To improve analysis progress, buckled members were removed from the analysis.
​

(op.cit. p.487, bottom)

It's up to you to prove that the intent was nefarious. So far NIST has done well justifying their omission: it was not a failure mode contemplated in the model.

Then LSSBB asked gerrycan this:

Do you know what solution convergence means?

Now I don’t know if LSSBB was asking what solution convergence means specifically for this particular analysis, or if he was asking more generally. Either way, any Engineer (gerrycan is not an Engineer so this does not apply to him) worth his salt should have an understanding of the general concept of convergence in a mathematical sense and what that means for modeling and simulation.

Predictably gerrycan’s explanation is lacking in detail and almost cryptic:

Load balancing the model.

To which LSSBB replied:

Wrong, try again.
ETA: Start with wiki here, then keep digging until you see daylight. The best way to experience the true meaning is develop your own algorithm to solve a problem then watch it get nowhere all night, in frustration.

At this point the discussion should have ended as gerrycan read the article and began a journey of discovery where he learned about various topics like approximations, what convergence and non-convergence mean, infinite series, nonlinear systems, linear systems, boundary value problems, initial value problems, etc (and on and on and on).
Gerrycan should have realized that there is WAY more to these topics than what he is aware of and should have begun learning about material that Engineers are introduced to in school and then continue to learn from experience as they spend 40+ hours a week using those fundamental, foundational principles to solve problems, design things, test solutions, etc.
Instead he posted this:

In terms of what NIST are saying it isn't. They're basically saying that to include the impacts of failed elements on floors in the model would have made the check calculation to run the model too large to allow it to be done quickly enough.

LSSBB replied with:

What you are just saying does not relate to what you posted regarding load balance.

Then gerrycan found a definition from ANSYS:

Convergence Procedure
The difference between external and internal loads is called the
residual. It is a measure of the force imbalance in the structure.
The goal is to iterate until the residual becomes acceptably small; less than
the criterion, where the solution is then considered converged.
When convergence is achieved, the solution is in equilibrium, within an
acceptable tolerance.

It begins to become apparent that gerrycan is now trying to find anything to word smith a reply that makes his “Load balancing the model” answer seem insightful and technically accurate.
LSSBB replies as one might expect:

Yay, you've found a procedure definition (reference, please)!

In this instance for this particular algorithm, the residual (also sometimes called "error") is set to a difference between external and internal loads. What are the internal loads, and what are the external loads? What would cause them to not be in balance?

LSSBB further elaborates:

ANSYS is an algorithm. You found how they measure the residual for each iteration until it finds an acceptable solution. It is using the delta between what it defines as internal forces, vs what it defines as external forces. Why do you think they would not "converge" on any particular iteration?

Most Engineers try to use exact language (without being wordy) and to be as accurate as possible when describing something. That is why we like mathematics so much; it provides a concise, accurate way to describe something. But if you have to use words, use as many as are necessary to convey an accurate, exact meaning. Writing “Load balancing the model” falls short of that. This is what happens when non Engineers enter into discussions about technical topics they have a shallow grasp on.
Of course, gerrycan continues to attempt a defense of his position:

Hang on, you said I was wrong about the balancing of the model. Do you stand by that?

LSSBB explains a third time:

Yes, because you defined solution convergence as load balancing, whereas in the algorithm used by ANSYS, the solution converges when the load balances. Understand now?

And then a fourth, with more detail:

Apparently you don't understand.

The algorithm has an internal condition it is trying to match, and the algorithm continues to go through iterations until it reaches that condition. In the case of ANSYS that you quotes, that condition is satisfied when (External Force) - (Internal Force) = 0. In another algorithm, the condition might be momentum does not change between iterations (is conserved), or energy does not change, or maybe it's a Monte Carlo and the purpose is to forecast a failure probability and some other residual is defined.

Why this is important, is that as the algorithm runs, the residual or error may not converge toward zero. This may be due to the physical interactions involved, such as their nonlinearity, or a high sensitivity to initial conditions (chaotic system). When they find that leaving in certain components or having too fine a mesh of points fails to get the residual to converge toward 0 on successive iterations, they say it fails to converge to a solution.

After these attempts by LSSBB to educate gerrycan and encouraging him to research this topic more we get this reply from gerrycan:

Why did you not just say what it actually is - Newton Raphson.
Would have saved you a lot of typing.
ETA oh, i know why.

Whether gerrycan is consulting with other truthers or simply investi-googling on his own I can’t say for sure, although I would suspect it is a combination of both.

Throwing out “Newton Raphson” as if he understands this method or has ever really used it in solving a problem is a desperate attempt to appear technical, mathematical, and scientific. This is a classic case of techno-babble where someone throws out technical sounding terms hoping to score some points. This particular line of discussion should have ended many posts ago. The real answer to LSSBB’s question as to whether or not gerrycan (or ziggy) understands solution convergence is “no”.

No……they don’t.

 

[gerrycan]

Whether gerrycan is consulting with other truthers or simply investi-googling on his own I can’t say for sure, although I would suspect it is a combination of both.

So you're making up a conspiracy theory ??
I talk for myself only, and whatever you suspect is your business.
As for consulting with anyone about this, I consulted with a company only. ANSYS.

Throwing out “Newton Raphson” as if he understands this method or has ever really used it in solving a problem is a desperate attempt to appear technical, mathematical, and scientific. This is a classic case of techno-babble where someone throws out technical sounding terms hoping to score some points. This particular line of discussion should have ended many posts ago. The real answer to LSSBB’s question as to whether or not gerrycan (or ziggy) understands solution convergence is “no”.

No……they don’t.

You have absolutely no clue. I know you're sore that your fwiend got it handed back to him, and I admire the way you are trying to save some face for him, but really, you're saying nothing here except for throwing out some half baked conspiracy theory that I am consulting with people. lol Funny.

What about when your other fwiend asked about linear Vs non-linear, and Jay tried to hurry me into choosing one?

that's a much better conspiracy theory than yours.

Go kiss it better for him, and try to post something other than a conspiracy theory laden commentary about a topic on which you can apparently only spectate.
In the words of Jay
"It's the classic groping for proof. "There are hoaxes. Therefore the hoax that I propose, exists.""

Oh that's gotta hurt.

 

[beachnut]

So you're making up a conspiracy theory ??
I talk for myself only, and whatever you suspect is your business.
As for consulting with anyone about this, I consulted with a company only. ANSYS.



You have absolutely no clue. I know you're sore that your fwiend got it handed back to him, and I admire the way you are trying to save some face for him, but really, you're saying nothing here except for throwing out some half baked conspiracy theory that I am consulting with people. lol Funny.

What about when your other fwiend asked about linear Vs non-linear, and Jay tried to hurry me into choosing one?

that's a much better conspiracy theory than yours.

Go kiss it better for him, and try to post something other than a conspiracy theory laden commentary about a topic on which you can apparently only spectate.
In the words of Jay
"It's the classic groping for proof. "There are hoaxes. Therefore the hoax that I propose, exists.""

Oh that's gotta hurt.

Your no evidence fantasy for CD; at least people like the Boston bombers believed it. Your peers in 911 truth.

Why can't you state your theory? No evidence? Predestination of failure, 911 truth, is this the perpetual failure like JFK CTers, and Bigfoot. State your theory, present your theory; trying to prove NIST wrong, proves you are not capable of understanding what probable means. And then that fire did it. I don't need NIST to understand WTC 7 failing fire; you need evidence to prove your theory of thermite, and CD.

... -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

Deets never offered more than speculation, and you fail to offer anything of value for your theory, a theory you can't explain. And you never will.

You google up science, stuff you never studied or understood, and now you have run out of steam, you fail to keep up the BS. You got this approach, but it is shallow and failed. If you had something it would be published.

Deets imply CD, you believe in CD. Your "new approach", based on some paranoid poiltical propagda agenda, fails in logic. If you can't support your CD theory, proving NIST was wrong, will not solve your lack of evidence.
You talked to a software company - wow - but you can't explain or support your CD theory.

 

[gerrycan]

Originally pgimeno posted this (highlights added by LSSBB later):


Then LSSBB asked gerrycan this:
"Do you know what solution convergence means?"

Now I don’t know if LSSBB was asking what solution convergence means specifically for this particular analysis, or if he was asking more generally. Either way, any Engineer (gerrycan is not an Engineer so this does not apply to him) worth his salt should have an understanding of the general concept of convergence in a mathematical sense and what that means for modeling and simulation.

Predictably gerrycan’s explanation is lacking in detail and almost cryptic:
"load balancing the model"

There's not much cryptic about my answer at all. It was said to be wrong by LSSBB and others so I consulted ANSYS to find out how they described the process. Turns out I was right, and your fwiend was wrong. Sorry, but that's how it was.

People of your ilk on this thread have been saying that I am talking on behalf of, or consulting a team. Given that I am not, it's kind of a backhanded compliment. Note that I said way back that I did not talk for ae911 or anyone apart from myself.
That I would go and check in case I had got it wrong, and come back with an answer from the source of the program itself which supports what I said is troubling for you. It should be, after all, you guys are so far getting it handed to you collectively from one guy, who you suppose may be a team.
Goodness only knows what would happen if you guys came up against that team. Fancy finding out?

And as for the not an engineer bit, who cares? I have only said that I am a piano player so far on here and it shouldn't matter if that's all I am or not. You have no agreeable authority left to appeal to, so you try to attack the authority of those who oppose you.
Kinda desperate that.

 

[Oystein]

Yikes - what a busy night! Three or four pages of new posts, but mostly bickering about metatopics, and back-and-forth insinuations about personal qualifications or rather the lack thereof. I have lost track of where this debate is supposed to go, and suspect several participants have lost he plot, if ever they had one...

I won't point fingers, just would like to implore y'all to ask yourself before clicking "Submit": Am I addressing the argument or the arguer? What is the big picture here, and does my post help readers to better see the big picture? What is the current topic, and am I posting on topic, or moving the goal post?

I found that the thread is best read if certain posts are ignored entirely (feel free to guess my criteria), and I recommend employing the same procedure when deciding which posts not to reply to (there exists no obligation for anyone to answer quesions, for example).

*stepping of the soap box and looking for a nice place to have my morning coffee*

 

[beachnut]

There's not much cryptic about my answer at all. It was said to be wrong by LSSBB and others so I consulted ANSYS to find out how they described the process. Turns out I was right, and your fwiend was wrong. Sorry, but that's how it was.

Right, no, you are wrong, your CD theory is BS. Thus no matter how many battles you win using your "new approach", you offer no engineering to support your CD theory. You don't understand engineering models. You can't be on the level and explain your theory.

People of your ilk on this thread have been saying that I am talking on behalf of, or consulting a team. Given that I am not, it's kind of a backhanded compliment. Note that I said way back that I did not talk for ae911 or anyone apart from myself.

People of your ilk? As you push the lie of CD, making up lies about the United States, and all your claims are made without evidence, based on nonsense 911 truth made up based on nothing.

That I would go and check in case I had got it wrong, and come back with an answer from the source of the program itself which supports what I said is troubling for you. It should be, after all, you guys are so far getting it handed to you collectively from one guy, who you suppose may be a team.

You mean you don't know? You don't go and check on CD theories, in fact you avoid the CD theory. You put in zero effort to verify CD; instead you attack a probable cause, which if wrong does not mean CD, it means fire did it.
And of course you are winning, your CD theory remains a failed fantasy, but you are winning.

Goodness only knows what would happen if you guys came up against that team. Fancy finding out?

A team of what, paranoid conspiracy theorists with no evidence for their claims. You can't debate fantasy CTers, and that is all you have, winners in a fantasy. Gee, in a fantasy you have to be the winner. It is your fantasy.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7aSpz14GYLXCCGUDFt4IQ
This is the only team you have, a bunch of BS on the Internet. Are these your videos? The one with Hitler, which team member came up with that failed junk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe0E9cjUbI

And as for the not an engineer bit, who cares? I have only said that I am a piano player so far on here and it shouldn't matter if that's all I am or not. You have no agreeable authority left to appeal to, so you try to attack the authority of those who oppose you.
Kinda desperate that.

I agree, you don't have to be an engineer to avoid falling for the dumbest claims on 911, like CD, thermite, and explosives.
When I taught first graders cause and effect, that is all you need. It is as if all 911 truth followers missed that day in first grade, or they were the students day dreaming. It was amazing how some first graders figured out cause and effect, and could explain it; why can't you explain your theory of CD? First grader can explain cause and effect, and they don't use your "new approach" nonsense to avoid the truth.

In the OP, Deets implied CD, he could not grasp the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the exterior; which is the answer to his question.

Now you claim victory, and you have done nothing but repeat BS you googled, as your act comes to an end.

Bring on the team, they don't seem to exist.

 

[newton3376]

Yikes - what a busy night! Three or four pages of new posts, but mostly bickering about metatopics, and back-and-forth insinuations about personal qualifications or rather the lack thereof. I have lost track of where this debate is supposed to go, and suspect several participants have lost he plot, if ever they had one...

I won't point fingers, just would like to implore y'all to ask yourself before clicking "Submit": Am I addressing the argument or the arguer? What is the big picture here, and does my post help readers to better see the big picture? What is the current topic, and am I posting on topic, or moving the goal post?

I found that the thread is best read if certain posts are ignored entirely (feel free to guess my criteria), and I recommend employing the same procedure when deciding which posts not to reply to (there exists no obligation for anyone to answer quesions, for example).

*stepping of the soap box and looking for a nice place to have my morning coffee*

Just summarizing a discussion that is long overdue to end.

 

[Oystein]

Just summarizing a discussion that is long overdue to end.

If you feel the discussion ought to be ended right now, then do end it right now.

I feel the discussion has yet some distance to go - of course I am talking about a focused discussion that fleshes out the arguments actually made, and addresses them closely one by one, with an eye to some larger comprehensive theory.

For a while, in recent days, I felt I was learning from the discussion, and wish it could be finished without branching out to different goals and meta-topics.

 

[newton3376]

If you feel the discussion ought to be ended right now, then do end it right now.

I feel the discussion has yet some distance to go - of course I am talking about a focused discussion that fleshes out the arguments actually made, and addresses them closely one by one, with an eye to some larger comprehensive theory.

For a while, in recent days, I felt I was learning from the discussion, and wish it could be finished without branching out to different goals and meta-topics.

The discussion of gerry's answer to LSSBB's question on solution convergence is what I refer to (since that was the topic of my post), not the general discussion concerning analysis of specific structural members in light of NIST's model.

I would suggest the discussion focus solely on whatever specific claims are being made within this thread about WTC7. Asking truthers if they understand engineering or mathematical principles or the application thereof is likely a futile exercise.

If they understood those topics then they would not be truthers in the first place and it is unlikely they are going to learn those topic during an online debate. Their interest is "winning" or "scoring points", not learning these topics.

I won't post again lest I add fuel to the fire.

 

[Spanx]

I feel the discussion has yet some distance to go

I feel the discussion has not even started, gerrycan and his team of experts which now includes Ziggi have not produced their reasons for the impossiblility they claim.

When this is done the discussion can start, they presented nothing to NIST and nothing to this forum.

If they want to be taken seriously in the real world why are they trolling here and tabloos site ?