'What about building 7'?

[Grizzly Bear]

No, the fact that NIST were asked to look for any additional elements on the girder leaves them no excuse for not seeing the plates that were there on the drawings.
Maybe you could explain COMBIN37 to LSSBB?

Do you mind me asking once more - in the interest of cutting some of the noise factor - where your critique leads? I may doubt your argument at this level of detail but if it leads to a valid criticism of code changes that resulted from NISTs' findings then that seems like a reasonable "next step".

I know you're absolutely flooded with responses to your remarks, but your colleagues answer to me a couple days ago was unfortunately far from complete.

I keep asking because while "CD" isn't a viable conclusion, it doesn't mean NIST's findings are absolute either. The criticisms from the CBUTH are proof of this.

Now again... I'm willing to open up to the possibility that the NIST focused too much on one mechanism. You do not need to argue with me at that level of detail; so what then? In your line of concluding, is this a "the building should not have collapsed at all" sort of thing, or is this a "NIST focused too much on the wrong collapse initiation mecanism and made the wrong code recommendations" sort of thing?

 

[LSSBB]

See the above quote from the report which is one of many which illustrate that the inputs carried over to LSDYNA were ESTIMATES.
I am not trying to be in any way offensive here, but is english your first language?
ETA I am asking if there is a genuine language difficulty here, I can't think of much else to attribute your lack of comprehension to.

English is my first language. I also know Latin somewhat, a smattering of Farsi and Spanish, and for what it's worth C++, VBA, Fortran, SQL, PL/SQL, PERL, and I've dabbled in MATLAB and some other obscure script languages.

Why won't you cite it, specifically, for the scenario you are concerned with?

 

[Animal]

Because a 53ft beam cannot expand the given distance and that is the only measurement that ANSYS took via (COMBIN37) element.

Wrong once again......

 

[Animal]

Do you mind me asking once more - in the interest of cutting some of the noise factor - where your critique leads? I may doubt your argument at this level of detail but if it leads to a valid criticism of code changes that resulted from NISTs' findings then that seems like a reasonable "next step".

I know you're absolutely flooded with responses to your remarks, but your colleagues answer to me a couple days ago was unfortunately far from complete.

I keep asking because while "CD" isn't a viable conclusion, it doesn't mean NIST's findings are absolute either. The criticisms from the CBUTH are proof of this.

Now again... I'm willing to open up to the possibility that the NIST focused too much on one mechanism. You do not need to argue with me at that level of detail; so what then? In your line of concluding, is this a "the building should not have collapsed at all" sort of thing, or is this a "NIST focused too much on the wrong collapse initiation mecanism and made the wrong code recommendations" sort of thing?

I think NIST took a sort of worse case scenario.......they showed that the girder would fail by walk off (whether through beam expansion, torsional buckling etc doesn't really matter) Their are all sorts of other potential failure modes.....seat failure, column movement to the east, contraction from cooling, etc. etc that all could have caused or partially contributed to the failure. NISt showed the probable cause of the collapse as the floor failures around column 79 leading to column failure leading to building failure. Troofers cannot have that happen, because their religiously held beliefs get shattered.

 

[LSSBB]

Wrong once again......

Fixed...

 

[Oystein]

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

Thanks for posting the evidence that refutes your claim that the CTBUH "totally disagrees" with NIST.
It is difficult to understant why you have not retracted that false claim.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I think NIST took a sort of worse case scenario.......they showed that the girder would fail by walk off (whether through beam expansion, torsional buckling etc doesn't really matter) Their are all sorts of other potential failure modes.....seat failure, column movement to the east, contraction from cooling, etc. etc that all could have caused or partially contributed to the failure. NISt showed the probable cause of the collapse as the floor failures around column 79 leading to column failure leading to building failure. Troofers cannot have that happen, because their religiously held beliefs get shattered.

On a strictly objective basis I don't think you can say NIST showed what you are claiming. To start with their model does not replicate the actual failure, as it shows severe exterior deformation during the initial collapse, which is not observed in reality.

The credibility of the report gets worse when one finds that the authors somehow thought the seat width for girder A2001 at column 79 was 11 inches wide, when the drawing clearly shows it to be 12 inches wide. It is also interesting that the 11 inch mistake was made in conjunction with the reality that the beams from the east could only expand 5.5 inches at a maximum temperature of 600 degrees C.

They get even worse yet when one finds that whoever did the analyses for their initiation hypothesis omitted pertinent structural features, such as the web stiffeners on girder A2001 which would have increased the walk-off distance and lateral support beams from the north exterior to beam G3005 which would prevent that beam from buckling. These items were not left out to simplify the FEA as they clearly would have made a difference in the outcome. The only features and items allowed to be left out are things which would provably not affect the outcome such as radii, chamfers, etc.

 

[LSSBB]

On a strictly objective basis I don't think you can say NIST showed what you are claiming. To start with their model does not replicate the actual failure, as it shows severe exterior deformation during the initial collapse, which is not observed in reality.

The credibility of the report gets worse when one finds that the authors somehow thought the seat width for girder A2001 at column 79 was 11 inches wide, when the drawing clearly shows it to be 12 inches wide. It is also interesting that the 11 inch mistake was made in conjunction with the reality that the beams from the east could only expand 5.5 inches at a maximum temperature of 600 degrees C.

They get even worse yet when one finds that whoever did the analyses for their initiation hypothesis omitted pertinent structural features, such as the web stiffeners on girder A2001 which would have increased the walk-off distance and lateral support beams from the north exterior to beam G3005 which would prevent that beam from buckling. These items were not left out to simplify the FEA as they clearly would have made a difference in the outcome. The only features and items allowed to be left out are things which would provably not affect the outcome such as radii, chamfers, etc.

Is their severe exterior deformation shown in a modeling that contains a fully defined, moment framed exterior?

 

[MileHighMadness]

I see our unlicensed mechanical engineer has returned...

This is very simple...Controlled Demolition, zero evidence, impossible theory.

 

[Animal]

On a strictly objective basis I don't think you can say NIST showed what you are claiming. To start with their model does not replicate the actual failure, as it shows severe exterior deformation during the initial collapse, which is not observed in reality. .

More hamster wheel spinning by TZ. The purpose was to discover the initiating event......no the total collapse. No person based in reality expect and sort of total collapse model......only troofers insist on that nonsense.

The credibility of the report gets worse when one finds that the authors somehow thought the seat width for girder A2001 at column 79 was 11 inches wide, when the drawing clearly shows it to be 12 inches wide. It is also interesting that the 11 inch mistake was made in conjunction with the reality that the beams from the east could only expand 5.5 inches at a maximum temperature of 600 degrees C.

You haven't learned anything in the 13 years have you? The correction was made by NIST.....only troofers think that 5.5 inches and 600 degrees has been set in stone.....the fact is neither is true.......your continuing to ignore the facts is shameful. It may fool the uneducated that prop up dicky gage's vacation fund......but nobody else.

They get even worse yet when one finds that whoever did the analyses for their initiation hypothesis omitted pertinent structural features, such as the web stiffeners on girder A2001 which would have increased the walk-off distance and lateral support beams from the north exterior to beam G3005 which would prevent that beam from buckling. These items were not left out to simplify the FEA as they clearly would have made a difference in the outcome. The only features and items allowed to be left out are things which would provably not affect the outcome such as radii, chamfers, etc.

Here we go again........the only people that claim "pertinent" structural features" are once again, the uneducated inhabitants of dicky gage's all expense paid vacation fund. And once again you demonstrate your ignorance of computer modeling and building structures. You simply ignore the facts presented to you and make the same erroneous claims time and time again.

And still no explanation of the material ADDED by NIST to prevent other objects from failing.......after all theses years, your paper napkin calculations have got you nowhere.......I hope dicky gage at least brings you back a t-shirt from his travels.....

 

[pgimeno]

WOW, how quick you are to forget. You have been refusing to get into the calculations to show how the girder could have been displaced 6.25 inches, but now you are declaring like Moses on the Mountain that the report CAN account for it. Would you mind showing some numbers to support your claim, or are you speaking as the figure head for a religious cult?

And just for the sake of argument, include that alleged displacement of the column and add it to the expansion of the floor beams. Stick to NIST´s data, not stuff made up by you and your buddies.

I'll try to explain it to you once again. Hopefully it will eventually sink.

I don't need to show any calculations.

The calculations were done by ANSYS. NIST report on the results of these calculations. They are already done, and made with computers because they are far too complex to do by hand. That's the whole point of using ANSYS. They were made by forensic engineering experts. I am not a forensic engineering expert. Neither are gerrycan or Szamboti or you.

The claim that walk-off was impossible is based on the unproven assumption that, since NIST doesn't mention the column as a factor for walk-off, it happened after the walk-off. Here's some news for you: NIST doesn't mention it wasn't a factor either.

You can't prove your assumption without asking NIST.

Go ask NIST and tell us back what they said.

 

[LSSBB]

And still no explanation of the material ADDED by NIST to prevent other objects from failing.......after all theses years, your paper napkin calculations have got you nowhere.......I hope dicky gage at least brings you back a t-shirt from his travels.....

I wonder if Tony knows what Solution Convergence means?

 

[GlennB]

I now totally believe that the missing inch of expansion would have left the building standing.

The only possible alternative explanation for its collapse is vast amounts of silent explosives set for no purpose whatsoever under circumstances almost certain to lead to discovery before the event. Oh, and with no guarantee of fires being set in the building to allow the subsequent NISTian coverup.

 

[Animal]

I'll try to explain it to you once again. Hopefully it will eventually sink.

I don't need to show any calculations.

The calculations were done by ANSYS. NIST report on the results of these calculations. They are already done, and made with computers because they are far too complex to do by hand. That's the whole point of using ANSYS. They were made by forensic engineering experts. I am not a forensic engineering expert. Neither are gerrycan or Szamboti or you.

The claim that walk-off was impossible is based on the unproven assumption that, since NIST doesn't mention the column as a factor for walk-off, it happened after the walk-off. Here's some news for you: NIST doesn't mention it wasn't a factor either.

You can't prove your assumption without asking NIST.

Go ask NIST and tell us back what they said.

You missed the other half of the assumptions.....the other nonsense claim is based on the assumption that the girder had to be pushed the entire length, and that the only beam capable was the one closest to column 79 where they keep falling back to the 5.5 vs 6.25 dimensions and the nonsense about the web stiffeners. Fact is that there were more than one beam reacting to the girder, and the reactions were to 2-dimensional.

Troofers unable to grasp the errors in both assumptions wil continue to fall for TZ's paper napkin calculations.

 

[JayUtah]

I wonder if Tony knows what Solution Convergence means?

I just find it amusing that the people who insist on reminding us that convergence is only to within some preselected tolerance (not to zero) are the same ones telling us that one-inch erratum matters so very much. Not quite the same thing, I realize. But invoking inherent uncertainty in such a cherry-picked way is one of the reasons the relevant sciences and industries have no patience for Truther claims.

 

[LSSBB]

I just find it amusing that the people who insist on reminding us that convergence is only to within some preselected tolerance (not to zero) are the same ones telling us that one-inch erratum matters so very much. Not quite the same thing, I realize. But invoking inherent uncertainty in such a cherry-picked way is one of the reasons the relevant sciences and industries have no patience for Truther claims.

I hope Tony didn't overlook your earlier essay on "web stiffeners". Maybe he has a reply.

 

[Spanx]

I now totally believe that the missing inch of expansion would have left the building standing.

The only possible alternative explanation for its collapse is vast amounts of silent explosives set for no purpose whatsoever under circumstances almost certain to lead to discovery before the event. Oh, and with no guarantee of fires being set in the building to allow the subsequent NISTian coverup.

Yes me too, what now ? Hand over all our money ?

 

[DGM]

Has gerrycan presented his evidence that the details he outlines change the agreed conclusions of the NIST and the CTBUH?

gerrycan: Do you dispute the fact they agree on the conclusion?

 

[gerrycan]

Has gerrycan presented his evidence that the details he outlines change the agreed conclusions of the NIST and the CTBUH?

gerrycan: Do you dispute the fact they agree on the conclusion?

They do not agree on the initiating event and that was the context within which they were mentioned. They do not concur with NIST in regard to the C79-44 girder either. They expressed these views without having access to the structural drawings. It would indeed be interesting to find out their thoughts in light of the publication of SOME of the drawings .

 

[DGM]

They do not agree on the initiating event and that was the context within which they were mentioned. They do not concur with NIST in regard to the C79-44 girder either. They expressed these views without having access to the structural drawings. It would indeed be interesting to find out their thoughts in light of the publication of SOME of the drawings .

Doesn't answer the question. Is this a problem for you?

I would like to see your evidence for the bold. ETA: pretty please.