'What about building 7'?

[Oystein]

...the CTBUH totally disagree with them and NIST...

I wish you did not lie as blatantly as this. I need not explain why this is a blatant lie - just ask yourself: Who does the CTBUH in fact "totally disagree with" - us and the NIST, or you and the Truth Movement?
To restore my faith in your desire to debate honestly, I'd advise you to answer this question consisely and truthfully. Thanks.

 

[gerrycan]

I wish you did not lie as blatantly as this. I need not explain why this is a blatant lie - just ask yourself: Who does the CTBUH in fact "totally disagree with" - us and the NIST, or you and the Truth Movement?
To restore my faith in your desire to debate honestly, I'd advise you to answer this question consisely and truthfully. Thanks.

As far as the failure of the C79-44 girder is concerned, the CTBUH does not concur with NIST in any way shape or form. I asked the question whether the CTBUH agrees with NIST with regard to girder walk off. The answer is no, and although that clearly sticks in your throat, the question remains.

 

[Oystein]

Straight question. Does the CTBUH agree with NIST on girder walk off?

Straw man.
You claimed the CTBUH disagrees "totally" with NIST and us.
You know that is not true. You know perfectly well that the CTBUH totally and unequivocally disagrees with YOU, gerrycan, and each one of your truther friends who claim intentional, even explosive, demoltition.

Straight question. Does the CTBUH totally disagree with NIST? That was your claim. Do yourself a favor and admit it was wrong, then try not to write such obvious untruths again. You are not doing yourself a favor that way.

 

[Oystein]

As far as the failure of the C79-44 girder is concerned,

Key word "totally".

the CTBUH does not concur with NIST in any way shape or form. I asked the question whether the CTBUH agrees with NIST with regard to girder walk off. The answer is no, and although that clearly sticks in your throat, the question remains.

Just answer the question, if only to display you have an honest bone left in your body:

Who does the CTBUH in fact "totally disagree with" - us and the NIST, or you and the Truth Movement?

 

[gerrycan]

Key word "totally".


Just answer the question, if only to display you have an honest bone left in your body:

Who does the CTBUH in fact "totally disagree with" - us and the NIST, or you and the Truth Movement?

Don't be insulting please.
The question here is about the veracity of NISTs report and in particular girder walk off. As you have been told, I am talking for myself only here, and have been talking about the veracity of NISTs claims, not the claims of the truth movement.
Don't move the goalposts Oystein. Answer the straight question that was posed. This has to do with whether the CTBUH agree with NIST, NOT whether they agree with the truth movement.

 

[gerrycan]

Straight question. Does the CTBUH totally disagree with NIST? That was your claim.

As far as girder walk off is concerned, yes, they do totally disagree with NIST.
And you know that, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Straight question. Does the CTBUH agree with NIST on girder walk off?

It appears not to. Straight question: does disagreement on one specific point justify the word "totally"?

You're deliberately and consciously overstating your position. It's dishonest.

Dave

 

[gerrycan]

It appears not to. Straight question: does disagreement on one specific point justify the word "totally"?

You're deliberately and consciously overstating your position. It's dishonest.

Dave

In terms of girder walk off, which is what is being discussed, the CTBUH TOTALLY disagrees with NIST. This is hugely relevant to this particular exchange.
I am NOT being dishonest, I am stating the fact. You just don't like it that the council, who your buddies on here tried to use to substantiate their assertions, do in fact, TOTALLY disagree with them as far as girder walk off is concerned.
Show a shred of intellectual rigor and admit that.
To continue to deny that which is in black and white in front of you in the draft report comments does your credibility no favour.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In terms of girder walk off, which is what is being discussed, the CTBUH TOTALLY disagrees with NIST.

Actually, the language of the report is much more measured and balanced, and simply says that it is unclear whether the analysis of the failure of the shear studs was sufficiently rigorous. The term "girder walk off" doesn't appear to be used at all, unless I've missed it. Sorry, but it's clear to me that you've overstated your position because you want to believe it too much.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

No, the calculation that set the required walk off distance for elements was NOT performed inside ANSYS. It was estimated by NIST outside of the program then applied to the analysis.

Citation please.

 

[gerrycan]

Actually, the language of the report is much more measured and balanced, and simply says that it is unclear whether the analysis of the failure of the shear studs was sufficiently rigorous. The term "girder walk off" doesn't appear to be used at all, unless I've missed it. Sorry, but it's clear to me that you've overstated your position because you want to believe it too much.

Dave

You need to quote what the CTBUH actually said instead of paraphrasing them in a way that suits your assertions, which as you can see below, they clearly do not concur with.

-The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder connection to Column 79.

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79.

It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at connection to Column 79

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

In terms of girder walk off, which is what is being discussed, the CTBUH TOTALLY disagrees with NIST. This is hugely relevant to this particular exchange.
I am NOT being dishonest, I am stating the fact. You just don't like it that the council, who your buddies on here tried to use to substantiate their assertions, do in fact, TOTALLY disagree with them as far as girder walk off is concerned.
Show a shred of intellectual rigor and admit that.
To continue to deny that which is in black and white in front of you in the draft report comments does your credibility no favour.

It is important to note that the CTBUH was expressing an opinion, yet the overall conclusion was the exact same Column Buckling do to failure leads to collapse in fire.
If the CTBUH totally disagreed with NIST then they need to present their own model of the collapse.

 

[gerrycan]

Citation please.

If you haven't read the report and seen that NIST set arbitrary points of walk off at which elements would be deemed to have failed, then you need to go read the actual report before trying to defend it.

 

[LSSBB]

If you haven't read the report and seen that NIST set arbitrary points of walk off at which elements would be deemed to have failed, then you need to go read the actual report before trying to defend it.

Citation, please.

 

[BasqueArch]

You need to quote what the CTBUH actually said instead of paraphrasing them in a way that suits your assertions, which as you can see below, they clearly do not concur with.

Ok
Here's what you didn't quote that the CTBUH actually said instead of paraphrasing them in a way that suits your assertions, which as you can see below, they clearly do not concur with.

[FONT=&quot]“The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of theprobable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns resulting in global failure. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] …………..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall buildingprofessionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings."
[/FONT]

 

[gerrycan]

Citation, please.

WOW you really have not read the report.
Show me the element in ansys that measured walk off. Pgimeno has already shot himself in the foot on this very thread by mistakenly saying that there was an ansys element there which would have measured the walk off experienced by the girder.

Here is NIST setting an arbitrary point at which walk off failure could be DEEMED to have occurred in the analysis.

The travel distance for a beam to walk off a seat was 2.5 in. A control element (COMBIN37), a unidirectional linear spring element with the capability of turning on and off during an analysis, was used to model walk-off.

Here is another.

The bolt shear by itself does not cause the beam to lose its vertical support, but it is the prerequisite for the beam end walking off the seat. The travel distance for a beam to walk off a seat was 4.5 in. A control element was used to model walk-off.

And here is NIST stating quite clearly that beams pushed girders right up to the point that they failed due to walk off.

Walk-off occurred when beams that framed into the girders from one side thermally expanded and the resulting compressive forces in the beams pushed laterally on the girder from one side, sheared the girder bolts, and then continued to laterally push the girder until it walked off the bearing seat.

You need to go and read the report if you wish to attempt to defend it.

 

[LSSBB]

WOW you really have not read the report.
Show me the element in ansys that measured walk off. Pgimeno has already shot himself in the foot on this very thread by mistakenly saying that there was an ansys element there which would have measured the walk off experienced by the girder.

Here is NIST setting an arbitrary point at which walk off failure could be DEEMED to have occurred in the analysis.

Here is another.

And here is NIST stating quite clearly that beams pushed girders right up to the point that they failed due to walk off.


You need to go and read the report if you wish to attempt to defend it.

Apparently my request was unclear. I am not looking for a citation for your second point, which can be attended to later. My request, again, was for a citation for THIS:

No, the calculation that set the required walk off distance for elements was NOT performed inside ANSYS. It was estimated by NIST outside of the program then applied to the analysis.

 

[Animal]

You just sumed up the entire truth movement, truthers always over simplifie the argument,
A good example of that is the false argument that solid iron microspheres equal thermite,
No they do not they only represent localized areas of higher than average oxidation, most
Likely do to work dividing fine metals and creating localized small metal oxidation reactions.
Those localized metal oxidation reactions mostly of Fe itself cause the formation
Of the solid iron microspheres.

Even simpler summation of troofers.

"My gut says it is not right; therefore CD
All other discussion shallhave the purpose of arriving at that conclusion.

 

[gerrycan]

Apparently my request was unclear. I am not looking for a citation for your second point, which can be attended to later. My request, again, was for a citation for THIS:

No, you are saying that there was a particular element in ANSYS that showed the walk off, of the girder. Which element is that? Keep in mind that we already have established that it is not (COMBI37).
Which ANSYS element is it. There's a list of them in the report for you to choose from.

 

[LSSBB]

No, you are saying that there was a particular element in ANSYS that showed the walk off, of the girder. Which element is that? Keep in mind that we already have established that it is not (COMBI37).
Which ANSYS element is it. There's a list of them in the report for you to choose from.

Citation please, to back this assertion:

No, the calculation that set the required walk off distance for elements was NOT performed inside ANSYS. It was estimated by NIST outside of the program then applied to the analysis.