'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

Where have you shown it could not fail in the model? You've so far only presented an argument based on hand calculations and did not include all the connections and distortions modelled by NIST in your hand calculations.

NIST showed in their analysis that the beam k3004 expanded only to the West. This assumption relies on the C38 connection remaining. The beam was removed along with the girder and the girder was removed because the flange was assumed to be incapable of bearing the load once the girder had shifted.
If you want a citation for that - read the report.

 

[DGM]

You need to distinguish clearly between the model and reality and clarify to which you are referring.

Reality. Isn't that the most important?

So to whom have you successfully discredited the NIST hypothesis to? Simple question.

 

[gerrycan]

Yes, we have my unwillingness to be distracted by your growing obsession over me personally, so intense that you have to go back and edit posts to add personalized arguments.

Without any prodding from me or anyone else, you claimed NIST had been disproven. I want to know whether this claim is an actual adjudication by someone, or whether it's just bluster.

Without any prodding, you urged us all to accept your theory so that we could move the discussion along. Given your well-publicized plan to avoid discussing anything but NIST's alleged error, I want now to know where you plan to take the discussion next.

Will you please clarify those two statements from you, please?

Okay. You just needed to say that you had not looked at the connection.
I doubt the credentials that you are so fond of citing when appealing to your own authority.
Have you looked at the C38 connection Jay?

 

[gerrycan]

Reality. Isn't that the most important?

So to whom have you successfully discredited the NIST hypothesis to? Simple question.

So the connection would obviously fail in reality and NIST should have accounted for that in their analysis of how far to the west the beam would have expanded. They could not do this however as that would mean that they could not claim the 5.5" that they did.

 

[JayUtah]

Okay. You just needed to say that you had not looked at the connection.

I see your previous comments were just bluster. Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

 

[gerrycan]

I see your previous comments were just bluster. Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

So have you ever looked at the C38 connection with beam K3004?

 

[LSSBB]

NIST showed in their analysis that the beam k3004 expanded only to the West. This assumption relies on the C38 connection remaining. The beam was removed along with the girder and the girder was removed because the flange was assumed to be incapable of bearing the load once the girder had shifted.
If you want a citation for that - read the report.

How far off center were the columns at each connection, x, y and z

 

[gerrycan]

How far off center were the columns at each connection, x, y and z

Which columns and at which point in the model?

 

[DGM]

So the connection would obviously fail in reality and NIST should have accounted for that in their analysis of how far to the west the beam would have expanded. They could not do this however as that would mean that they could not claim the 5.5" that they did.

Wrong. The displacement was not based on any single element. You know this.

To whom have you discredited the NIST hypothesis to? Why is this question a problem for you? You claim it's already done.

 

[gerrycan]

Wrong. The displacement was not based on any single element. You know this.

To whom have you discredited the NIST hypothesis to? Why is this question a problem for you? You claim it's already done.

In NISTs analysis it actually was. It was exactly what they based their criteria to remove such elements on-

"Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat primarily in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads. Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time. "

I am not seeing anything about columns moving around there. Are you?

 

[beachnut]

In NISTs analysis it actually was. It was exactly what they based their criteria to remove such elements on-

Now that you proved NIST wrong in your head; where is your engineering report on how CD did 911? Where is the evidence for CD?

 

[LSSBB]

Which columns and at which point in the model?

Don't know which columns K3004 was connected to? Look at the drawing.

 

[LSSBB]

In NISTs analysis it actually was. It was exactly what they based their criteria to remove such elements on-



I am not seeing anything about columns moving around there. Are you?

Congratulations, you have shown NIST did not completely describe column positions to complete your understanding. Have you submitted a suggested rewording yet?

 

[Belz...]

Instead of asking for a new investigation why not do some investigation work yourself.

He did. He investigated low-res Youtube videos and conspiracy websites !

 

[gerrycan]

Don't know which columns K3004 was connected to? Look at the drawing.

Ha ha ha. It was NOT connected to columnS - it was connected to only ONE column.
How do I get the laughing cat thing??

The irony of your attempted response is off the fricken scale.
Honestly. I think that you and I are probably done here.

 

[DGM]

In NISTs analysis it actually was. It was exactly what they based their criteria to remove such elements on-



I am not seeing anything about columns moving around there. Are you?

Was this not based on the results of the FEA? Does an FEA only consider a single element or connection?

Do you ever plan to back up your statement that the NIST hypothesis has been discredited? You can easily answer this as "to yourself".

 

[gerrycan]

Was this not based on the results of the FEA? Does an FEA only consider a single element?

Do you ever plan to back up your statement that the NIST hypothesis has been discredited? You can easily answer this as "to yourself".

No, this is a criteria for failure that was applied to the model rather than a failure that was observed in it. Huge difference.

 

[LSSBB]

Ha ha ha. It was NOT connected to columnS - it was connected to only ONE column.
How do I get the laughing cat thing??

The irony of your attempted response is off the fricken scale.
Honestly. I think that you and I are probably done here.

Don't know how far each end of K3004 was off, and can't name what it was connected to without resulting to a dismissive response?

 

[gerrycan]

Don't know which columns K3004 was connected to? Look at the drawing.

I have to comment on this again in case you try to remove it.
This is probably the single most ridiculous response that I have seen so far on here, and that's saying something.

 

[gerrycan]

Don't know how far each end of K3004 was off, and can't name what it was connected to without resulting to a dismissive response?

Ok. K3004 was connected to the column that I was asking about C38. It's painful to have to point this stuff out given your prior comments and obvious attention to this thread. It shows just how shallow your knowledge of this building really is.