WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference?

That divergence shows the sensitivity of the models, and the error in insisting that there be one crucial make-or break event that the entire collapse hinges upon.

The models really don't have enough level of detail for such precision. Only the first one comes close, and that's super limited in scope.

Basically I think they were limited by time and budgets.
But both ansys and lsdyna are capable of modelling these elements, which makes the statement by NIST a strange one indeed. The models that they used are very limited looking though and do not support their own conclusions. As for time and financial constraints, I agree there, but some of the errors that they made were so basic that there are no excuses. ie 11/12" mistakes, elements missing etc etc
 
But both ansys and lsdyna are capable of modelling these elements, which makes the statement by NIST a strange one indeed.

Why don't you write a thread explaining that in depth?

And didn't they explain the 11/12 was just a typo and did not affect the model? If so you can't really hold that up as a huge issue.
 
Why don't you write a thread explaining that in depth?

And didn't they explain the 11/12 was just a typo and did not affect the model? If so you can't really hold that up as a huge issue.
A typo that put the walk distance even further, and another corresponding typo that just happened to fit in with their adjusted hypothesis. So given that they made the impossible even more so with their statement, and did not deal with the consequences of that in the statement, then yes, it is a major issue.
As for starting a thread re the inability to model, there's no need, they say it all there in NCSTAR 1-9A
 
A typo that put the walk distance even further, and another corresponding typo that just happened to fit in with their adjusted hypothesis. So given that they made the impossible even more so with their statement, and did not deal with the consequences of that in the statement, then yes, it is a major issue.
As for starting a thread re the inability to model, there's no need, they say it all there in NCSTAR 1-9A

I mean explaining why you think their explanation is wrong. Debunk it.
 
I mean your claim "But both ansys and lsdyna are capable of modelling these elements, which makes the statement by NIST a strange one indeed."

Can you give a technical debunking of the NIST statement (including the actual NIST statement)?
 
I will do that at some point yes, but there are elements that exist in the models which are comparable to the ones that NIST claimed an inability to model accurately.
NCSTAR 1-9 page 625 figure 12-25 : tell me if that looks like the connection at column 79 to you.
THEN look at the previous page and figure 12-24. Even their own illustrations contradict each other, but then consider that they model the column 81 connection in fig 12-26. Surely the target size of the top clip is no more than the stiffeners would be?
 
You are going to have to point out the "claimed inability" to me. What did they claim, and where did they claim it?
 
ok i will try to go over this tomorrow. Alternatively, open the pdf and search for column 79, you will get to it.
 
Wrong. Steel frame buildings are not susceptible to "lots of other things" that can initiate total structural failure.
In fact there is only one thing they are susceptible to and that is controlled demolition.


Working office buildings are not susceptible to controlled demolition.
 
What I like about this thread is the succinct and compact illustration of what I term "the truther fallacy" - if NIST makes any mistakes then that proves that the buildings could only be demolished.
 
What I like about this thread is the succinct and compact illustration of what I term "the truther fallacy" - if NIST makes any mistakes then that proves that the buildings could only be demolished.
How you jumped straight to that conclusion is beyond me...the point of this thread has NOTHING to do with proving controlled demolition and only one person even brought it up (hiper). It seems like you're the one fixated on controlled demolition. I'm not trying to be rude but I would suggest you reread the OP to get a better understanding of what the thread is about. I don't fully understand but I'm attempting to make sense of all of this.
It's all about those stiffener plates...
 
Back
Top