• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis[W:222, 344. 1463]

KokomoJojo said:
Because the purpose of your model was to answer these questions, unless you changed your mind in light of the data and minimum modelling requirements to accomplish that goal that I laid on the table
Click to expand...
No, I plan to do many models. not just one. I've already done some work. But I did tell you it would be weeks before I was able to start offering results and, knowing this, you refuse to do anything but tap your foot impatiently and say "you're waiting on my model".

:lamo

You'll be waiting a while, like I said at the outset. Stop acting like you don't know this. In the meantime, answer some ****ing questions for a change.
 
Kat Dorman said:
Still waiting on you to answer DOZENS of questions you've brashly refused to answer, some of which you asked of me first. You really expect me to jump to it, don't you?

Of course you're waiting for my model.

I wonder what would happen if I threw up a gif with absolutely no explanation - like you did.
Click to expand...

I did not offer to make a model, you did. However I look at everything as proposed.





lattice loading



in 3d that is a lattice design.




The ONLY way it can fall straight down without tipping is by demolition

Dont even need to go through 1st grade to see how fast the building below tips as soon as it meets resistance.



Otherwise

the top, as a result of the center of mass as you said, would have sliced off the side of the building. Only a debunker and agency fraud would try and claim that it is not relevant and that it would not. Physics models show this.




the superimposed relative green vertical damage, the orange torque will cause the top to slide off the side as can be seen below unlike the demolition as seen above.


you are disregarding and trying to jump around dealing with the problem at hand.
 
Kat Dorman said:
I wonder what would happen if I threw up a gif with absolutely no explanation - like you did.
Click to expand...

How about this?

2qtlkyf.png


By your standards, you're wrong, case closed. And, no, I won't be answering a single question about it.
 
Kat Dorman said:
No, I plan to do many models. not just one. I've already done some work. But I did tell you it would be weeks before I was able to start offering results and, knowing this, you refuse to do anything but tap your foot impatiently and say "you're waiting on my model".

:lamo

You'll be waiting a while, like I said at the outset. Stop acting like you don't know this. In the meantime, answer some ****ing questions for a change.
Click to expand...

thats fine, however a bunch of questions outside understanding the actual design and its data is meaningless.

do you have any design or data questions?

You can see the by the white line, the torque and the mass and their positions to center how this must turn out LOL
 
Kat Dorman said:
How about this?

2qtlkyf.png


By your standards, you're wrong, case closed. And, no, I won't be answering a single question about it.
Click to expand...

I made counter arguments, that destroy sanders and oz, that the core resistance is "negligible"and you dont need to explain that, it does nothing to challenge what I posted.
 
KokomoJojo said:
do you have any design or data questions?
Click to expand...
You mean questions you'll actually answer?

You can see the by the white line, the torque and the mass and their positions to center how this must turn out LOL
Click to expand...
Are you saying the upper section should've or did slide down the white line? Or something else? Please ****ing answer because that graphic is a little too info-rich at this point. It's like a circus poster.
 
KokomoJojo said:
... it does nothing to challenge what I posted.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it shows the totality of your arguments on this matter are false, because I say so.

How does your manner of argumentation feel when it's turned back on you?

:lamo
 
Kat Dorman said:
You mean questions you'll actually answer?


Are you saying the upper section should've or did slide down the white line? Or something else? Please ****ing answer because that graphic is a little too info-rich at this point. It's like a circus poster.
Click to expand...

I already explained that to you what is not clear?

It would look like this



as a result of this:



the wtc2 65% of the top section is over cg and outside the core, 30% is outside the whole building acting as pure torque and the remaining 30% has little crushing ability and converts mostly to torque.


the superimposed relative green vertical damage, the orange torque will cause the top to slide off the side as can be seen below unlike the demolition as seen above.
 
Kat Dorman said:
On the contrary, it shows the totality of your arguments on this matter are false, because I say so.

How does your manner of argumentation feel when it's turned back on you?

:lamo
Click to expand...

no its incomplete, as you can see mine is explained many ways and its a pretense to claim otherwiase

you need to point toward a lattice so you account for vertical, lateral and torque as that is how lattice designs absorb and transfer load



lattice loading


there is one part thats not quite according to holye but I dont feel like correcting it LOL
 
Last edited:
KokomoJojo said:
I already explained that to you what is not clear?
Click to expand...
I wanted to be clear about what your white line meant. If that's supposed to represent a rough path of the upper portion being sectioned and migrating laterally during descent, I say that's what I'd imagine happened.

It would look like this
Click to expand...
It would look like a total crush-up of the upper section, followed by an invincible hat truss / roof falling over the side? I don't agree for a variety of reasons: the structural susceptibility of interior collapse being a big one. Even this game engine shows an extensive partial collapse precipitated by the roof brushing the side as it falls over. Again, you're trying to make an argument that the top section should've fallen over - toppled - and that's NOT what this graphic shows. It shows total crush up of the upper portion.

When you say it should look like that, what other way is there to take it?
 
Fledermaus said:
asce, ctbuh
Click to expand...

Couldn't find much could you? Those aren't links. So you think you can awe people with organizations.

May 1, 2002

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.
Click to expand...

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire (May 1, 2002)

That is only 25 and there is no mention of the words, "mass", "momentum" or "seconds".

These guys don't appear to be as loyal as you think.

Structural engineering council (CTBUH) casts doubt on NIST’s WTC 7 Report.

Structural engineering council (CTBUH) casts doubt on NIST’s WTC 7 Report. - We Are Change Seattle

psik
 
KokomoJojo said:
the superimposed relative green vertical damage, the orange torque will cause the top to slide off the side as can be seen below unlike the demolition as seen above.
Click to expand...
This is why it's important you understand what actually happened BEFORE you start theorizing. Earlier you said I was "trying to jump around dealing with the problem at hand" when one of things I'm trying to do is go back to unaddressed issues from before I left, so that a clear understanding of events can be established before trying to explain them. To that end, I will go back and continue with last week's posts.
 
Kat Dorman said:
I wanted to be clear about what your white line meant. If that's supposed to represent a rough path of the upper portion being sectioned and migrating laterally during descent, I say that's what I'd imagine happened.


It would look like a total crush-up of the upper section, followed by an invincible hat truss / roof falling over the side? I don't agree for a variety of reasons: the structural susceptibility of interior collapse being a big one. Even this game engine shows an extensive partial collapse precipitated by the roof brushing the side as it falls over. Again, you're trying to make an argument that the top section should've fallen over - toppled - and that's NOT what this graphic shows. It shows total crush up of the upper portion.

When you say it should look like that, what other way is there to take it?
Click to expand...

That actually started as a straight down collapse not a tipped top. lol However I am only interested in the part that "shows" what I am talking about, that is tipping over the side and how it would rip on the way down.

Lattice is what roberts was referring to when he used the screen pencil example.
 
KokomoJojo said:
Pretty tough to get a reasonable confidence in a model if its not possible to know the correct values to plug in. I suppose it can be worked around with approximations.
Click to expand...
More importantly, it can be meaningfully addressed with sensitivity analysis and exploratory data analysis. All the same, I think your comment reveals some lack of experience with modeling. I don't ever plan on doing something of the scope of FEA work like Z-Axis or enik. Simple models to demonstrate principles, answer questions, and give guidance. Problem domains within the scope of simple environments, NOT like the thing you say it should "look like".
 
KokomoJojo said:
That actually started as a straight down collapse not a tipped top.
Click to expand...
Run it again with some initial tilt and see what happens.

However I am only interested in the part that "shows" what I am talking about, that is tipping over the side and how it would rip on the way down.
Click to expand...
What does the tip-over of an indestructible roof element have to do with the toppling of a tall section acting as a rigid body?
 
Kat Dorman said:
This is why it's important you understand what actually happened BEFORE you start theorizing. Earlier you said I was "trying to jump around dealing with the problem at hand" when one of things I'm trying to do is go back to unaddressed issues from before I left, so that a clear understanding of events can be established before trying to explain them. To that end, I will go back and continue with last week's posts.
Click to expand...

Thats not true.

the only thing we need understand and understand extremely well is the materials used and the actual construction and yields and connections etc. what you saw is irrelevant beyond the initial failure modes. In other words duplicate what we could see in so far as perimeter pulling in etc.

Starting with an extensive understanding of what energy was "actually" absorbed by the engines hitting the cement destroying it several feet into the building reducing the ability to damage columns.

That is the actual starting point that everyone simply glosses over.
 
Kat Dorman said:
Run it again with some initial tilt and see what happens.


What does the tip-over of an indestructible roof element have to do with the toppling of a tall section acting as a rigid body?
Click to expand...


its purpose was strictly to provide a visual to make th point I am trying to drive home absolutely nothing more.
 
KokomoJojo said:
we can pick that back up another time. Jury is out on the one yet.
Click to expand...
No, the jury is not out (on whether that's the lower perimeter being thrust out). You didn't check out the link I provided, did you? That case is closed, it's not subject to interpretation, it's unequivocal. You are wrong. As I requested before, update you worldview with the information you've been presented.
 
KokomoJojo said:
the only thing we need understand and understand extremely well is the materials used and the actual construction and yields and connections etc.
Click to expand...
You mean a decent engineering estimate of the resistive force based on constitutive relations and material properties? Go for it. So far, you've done nothing but qualitatively oriented circus posters with claims unsupported by mechanics or numerical simulation.

what you saw is irrelevant beyond the initial failure modes. In other words duplicate what we could see in so far as perimeter pulling in etc.
Click to expand...
You offer gut based circus posters and you expect others to produce full-blown FEAs with a model to-print? What?

Starting with an extensive understanding of what energy was "actually" absorbed by the engines hitting the cement destroying it several feet into the building reducing the ability to damage columns.
Click to expand...
Engines? Cement? WTF are you talking about now? Talk about jumping all over the place.
 
Kat Dorman said:
More importantly, it can be meaningfully addressed with sensitivity analysis and exploratory data analysis. All the same, I think your comment reveals some lack of experience with modeling. I don't ever plan on doing something of the scope of FEA work like Z-Axis or enik. Simple models to demonstrate principles, answer questions, and give guidance. Problem domains within the scope of simple environments, NOT like the thing you say it should "look like".
Click to expand...

But then its pretty much a waste of time imo.

no reasonable guidance to be gained from incomplete examples that fail to accurately take in the full scope of the actual load transfer into account or for that matter maximum possible damage that a plane was even capable of causing as I said especially considering the engines plowed into the cement.
 
Kat Dorman said:
You mean a decent engineering estimate of the resistive force based on constitutive relations and material properties? Go for it. So far, you've done nothing but qualitatively oriented circus posters with claims unsupported by mechanics or numerical simulation.

Yeh thats what I said

You offer gut based circus posters and you expect others to produce full-blown FEAs with a model to-print? What?

Actually approximations that your team cannot refute.


Engines? Cement? WTF are you talking about now? Talk about jumping all over the place.
Click to expand...

yeh you dint know that?

well you need to know roughly how much damage is even possible do you not?
 
Kat Dorman said:
So, re-do it with an initial tilt.

You mean like this?
r2mfth.png
Click to expand...

nope that not a cube, think borg cube.

So you want to start from the beginning again?


lattice loading


there is one part thats not quite according to holye but I dont feel like correcting it LOL
 
KokomoJojo said:
But then its pretty much a waste of time imo.
Click to expand...
It's what a physics engine or simple force based rigid body solver CAN do. Any other use - like your "looks like" graphic - is folly.

no reasonable guidance to be gained from incomplete examples that fail to accurately take in the full scope of the actual load transfer into account or for that matter maximum possible damage that a plane was even capable of causing as I said especially considering the engines plowed into the cement.
Click to expand...
Impossible goals, eh? You think you can gin up a circus poster with handwaving assertions yet reject all but the most advanced and comprehensive structural FEA simulations humankind has ever attempted as rebuttal.

What number on your list of shill tactics was impossible demands?
 
KokomoJojo said:
well you need to know roughly how much damage is even possible do you not?
Click to expand...
You're completely clueless about how to do modeling. I explained above how this is handled. Assume the extremes of the possible range and try them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom