• 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.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone that constantly paraphrases, fabricates statements. and simply lies.......that is quite comical. :rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
Citation please, to back this assertion:
Click to expand...

Show me the control element in ANSYS that would have measured the walk off of the girder.
You have been given citations from NIST where they set the arbitrary walk off distances.
Show which element in ANSYS measured the walk off at the girder connection, and keep the following in mind.....
pgimeno said:
It seems I was wrong, and COMBIN37 was only used for walk off in the axial direction, and that instead they monitored the walk off distance by some other means.
Click to expand...

Show me what those "other means" are.
 
gerrycan said:
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.
Click to expand...

You will note the absence from your quotes of phrases such as "walk off" and totally disagree". Really, can't you read what you're posting yourself?

Your problem is that you've formulated a personal interpretation of the CTBUH response which exaggerates the points you want to prove, decided it's the definitive interpretation rather than your own, and are now arguing your interpretation rather than the actual response. Comments such as "it is difficult to understand..." and "does not describe..." are not statements of total disagreement, but rather requests for further description, and the statement of disagreement you've cited doesn't actually mention walk off.

You need to find some objectivity somewhere.

Dave
 
gerrycan said:
Show me the control element in ANSYS that would have measured the walk off of the girder.
You have been given citations from NIST where they set the arbitrary walk off distances.
Show which element in ANSYS measured the walk off at the girder connection, and keep the following in mind.....


Show me what those "other means" are.
Click to expand...

No, citation please for this:

gerrycan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where does it say they did what YOU said they did?
 
LSSBB said:
No, citation please for this:



Where does it say they did what YOU said they did?
Click to expand...

THERE IS NO ELEMENT IN ANSYS USED TO SPECIFICALLY MEASURE THE WALK OFF OF THE GIRDER AT C79-44. PGIMENO THOUGHT HE HAD FOUND IT AND HAD TO ADMIT THAT HE WAS MISTAKEN, IF YOU CAN FIND IT, SHOW IT. IF NOT THEN SHOW HOW THE MEASUREMENT WAS DONE INSIDE ANSYS.
 
Originally Posted by gerrycan
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.
Click to expand...
Animal said:
Coming from someone that constantly paraphrases, fabricates statements. and simply lies.......that is quite comical. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
You will note the absence from your quotes of phrases such as "walk off" and totally disagree". Really, can't you read what you're posting yourself?

Your problem is that you've formulated a personal interpretation of the CTBUH response which exaggerates the points you want to prove, decided it's the definitive interpretation rather than your own, and are now arguing your interpretation rather than the actual response. Comments such as "it is difficult to understand..." and "does not describe..." are not statements of total disagreement, but rather requests for further description, and the statement of disagreement you've cited doesn't actually mention walk off.

You need to find some objectivity somewhere.

Dave
Click to expand...

He's experiencing "convergence difficulties", otherwise known as cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
THERE IS NO ELEMENT IN ANSYS USED TO SPECIFICALLY MEASURE THE WALK OFF OF THE GIRDER AT C79-44. PGIMENO THOUGHT HE HAD FOUND IT AND HAD TO ADMIT THAT HE WAS MISTAKEN, IF YOU CAN FIND IT, SHOW IT. IF NOT THEN SHOW HOW THE MEASUREMENT WAS DONE INSIDE ANSYS.
Click to expand...

I don't need to show anything. I am asking you to back up with a citation that it was "estimated by NIST outside of the program and then applied to the analysis". Where is the citation for this?
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I don't need to show anything. I am asking you to back up with a citation that it was "estimated outside of the program and then applied to the analysis". Where is the citation for this?
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the walk off distances were calculated in ANSYS. You're WRONG and so was pgimeno, at least he had the good grace to admit his error, and I respect that. You made the assertion, now BACK IT UP.
pgimeno said:
It seems I was wrong, and COMBIN37 was only used for walk off in the axial direction, and that instead they monitored the walk off distance by some other means.
Click to expand...

Which element do you think it was?
 
gerrycan said:
THERE IS NO ELEMENT IN ANSYS USED TO SPECIFICALLY MEASURE THE WALK OFF OF THE GIRDER AT C79-44. PGIMENO THOUGHT HE HAD FOUND IT AND HAD TO ADMIT THAT HE WAS MISTAKEN, IF YOU CAN FIND IT, SHOW IT. IF NOT THEN SHOW HOW THE MEASUREMENT WAS DONE INSIDE ANSYS.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference. WTC7 failed due to fires, not CD.
 
gerrycan said:
You are claiming that the walk off distances were calculated in ANSYS. You're WRONG and so was pgimeno, at least he had the good grace to admit his error, and I respect that. You made the assertion, now BACK IT UP.


Which element do you think it was?
Click to expand...
So, you appear to be unable to back your claim it was "estimated" and "applied".
 
gerrycan said:
Funny that every time you guys get backed into a corner on an issue, the issue suddenly becomes irrelevant in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Not "suddenly". Pretty much every building professional who has reviewed and commented on the reports agrees that questions regarding the details of the collapses are irrelevant to the conclusion. Organizations like AE911Truth try to obscure that almost universal agreement on the big picture in favor of a mischaracterization of minor disagreements on minutia as a total disagreement. This is dishonest, in my opinion.
 
gerrycan said:
Funny that every time you guys get backed into a corner on an issue, the issue suddenly becomes irrelevant in your opinion.
Click to expand...

You interpretation of "backed into a corner" is right up there with your understanding of building structures and computer modelling.

To put it mildly....it is quite lacking. :rolleyes:
 
gerrycan said:
You claimed the calculation came from ANSYS. Show where that was done. Which element?
Click to expand...

Where specifically did I say, exactly, "the calculation came from ANSYS", since there are other means to perform calculations such as using ANSYS or another similar routine in an iterative loop? And you cannot back your assertion it appears.
 
LSSBB said:
Where specifically did I say, exactly, "the calculation came from ANSYS", since there are other means to perform calculations such as using ANSYS or another similar routine in an iterative loop? And you cannot back your assertion it appears.
Click to expand...
What calculations are you referring to here?
LSSBB said:
The calculations are performed INSIDE the computer analysis. To recreate it, you need to perform the same computer analysis. To refute is, you need to perform the same computer analysis, and change the inputs, or demonstrate something is wrong with the software.
Click to expand...
 
gerrycan said:
Funny that every time you guys get backed into a corner on an issue, the issue suddenly becomes irrelevant in your opinion.
Click to expand...
Sad that you guys have no evidence that fire did not collapse WTC7 and instead propose evidence-free CD. The issue is that NIST never said the beams expanded 5.5" or 6.25" . They said that girder C79-44 failed due to lateral torsional buckling. The issue is that you selectively quote mined CTBUH and that you guys have proven structural engineering incompetence and that it's a waste of time to argue about these matters because reason has nothing to do with what you wish to believe.
 
gerrycan said:
Which computer analysis were you referring to?
ETA and what calculation?
Click to expand...

He is referring to the embedded algorithm for thermal expansion.
The thermal expansion will be governed by known and embedded algorithms in the programs.
If you run the program with different variables you will have different results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom