• 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!

NIST North Tower ANSYS model -- floor trusses

gerrycan said:
Gamolon. Glad to see you're not still sore about being wrong on the shear stud issue. For several years.

Start a thread on it if you like. See what happens.

Or you can ask me about it on skype. If you haven't been reduced to a stuttering mess within the first 2 minutes.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Really gerrycan?!

GINGERBREAD MAN?!

:lamo

Are you that desperate to try and save what credibility you have left that you had to create ANOTHER sock puppet at JREF/ISF to try and draw me into a debate about shear studs? Pathetic, but funny!!!!
 
gamolon said:
:lamo

Really gerrycan?!

GINGERBREAD MAN?!

:lamo

Are you that desperate to try and save what credibility you have left that you had to create ANOTHER sock puppet at JREF/ISF to try and draw me into a debate about shear studs? Pathetic, but funny!!!!
Click to expand...

Gamolon. WTF are you on about now ?

ADD "gingerbread man" ? Explain please.
 
Last edited:
gamolon said:
Not even close! From drawing 6-AB1-33. it's already 1'-10" from the centerline of the WF to the centerline of the pipe for the support and the transfer truss sits even FURTHER out than that! How did you miss this?
View attachment 67233145

7.3"!!

:lamo

You're definitely not very good at this.
Click to expand...

So I post what I get from a drawing that I have stated is not reliable and not a figure I would use. You come back saying it's not reliable and start doing early victory laps again. That's not a gingerbreadman, that's a strawman.
 
gerrycan said:
Gamolon. WTF are you on about now ?

ADD "gingerbread man" ? Explain please.
Click to expand...
I'm not playing your games gerrycan. It's explained enough above.

So back to the floor trusses and seats. Do you have access to drawing book 7?
 
gamolon said:
I'm not playing your games gerrycan. It's explained enough above.

So back to the floor trusses and seats. Do you have access to drawing book 7?
Click to expand...

Playing games? You're not even at the right table.
I'm waiting on the rest of the drawing books. I have some Laclede data on the rolled angles via NIST so far, but they're still in the process of checking 3rd parties as far as the rest of the books and the shop fabrication shets for the trusses are concerned are concerned.

Now, WTF are you on about "gingerbreadman" ?
 
gerrycan said:
I'm waiting on the rest of the drawing books.
Click to expand...

Let us know if/when you get drawing book 7. Or maybe you have a picture of 7-AB3-2. That drawing has the dim for the truss ends as I have circled in the screenshot below.
trussdetail2.webp
 
Let us know when you all find the second shooter on the grassy knoll !!
 
Okay, I see you debating someone called "gingerbread man" over at jref. That's really not me Gamolon. If I wanted to go back over WTC7, I'd do it here.
Maybe take a step bback and try to gain some perspective.
 
gerrycan said:
That's really not me Gamolon.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say gerrycan...

Better look again. I'm not debating anyone named "gingerbread man" over there. Wishful thinking on your part.
 
gamolon said:
Whatever you say gerrycan...

Better look again. I'm not debating anyone named "gingerbread man" over there. Wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...

Why would I be wishing that you were debating someone else on another forum on an issue you were proven wrong about years ago, having spent over 2 years trying to debate and still incapable of accepting ?

You're losing it.
 
gerrycan said:
Why would I be wishing
Click to expand...
Same reason you came back there as Old Coarse Guy after you were originally banned.

We're getting off topic though.

Is there anything you wish to add about your claim of NIST swapping the long and short span trusses or are you finally done with continually being proven wrong?
 
gamolon said:
Same reason you came back there as Old Coarse Guy after you were originally banned.

We're getting off topic though.

Is there anything you wish to add about your claim of NIST swapping the long and short span trusses or are you finally done with continually being proven wrong?
Click to expand...

You haven't proven anything.

I am still astounded that EIGHT YEARS after being shown Bailey's testimony that evidence of the WTC7 C79-44 girder shear studs on ALL floors had come to his attention, you are still in denial. That's astoundingly intransigent.
 
gerrycan said:
You haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...
I have proven you have no clue what you're taking about when it comes to drawings and construction and have also invalidated most of your supporting evidence for your "NIST has swapped the truss ends" claim.
 
gamolon said:
I have proven you have no clue what you're taking about when it comes to drawings and construction and have also invalidated most of your supporting evidence for your "NIST has swapped the truss ends" claim.
Click to expand...

You've done no such thing. Stop getting your ambitions confused with your abilitites.
 
gerrycan said:
You've done no such thing. Stop getting your ambitions confused with your abilitites.
Click to expand...
Sooooo...

Nothing else to add to your "NIST swapped truss ends" claim? I guess this thread is done then?
 
gamolon said:
Sooooo...

Nothing else to add to your "NIST swapped truss ends" claim? I guess this thread is done then?
Click to expand...

You keep guessing Gamolon. I have already come to the conclusion that the trusses were mixed, as I stated on here weeks ago. If you're intent is to continue to defend NIST's full ANSYS model of WTC1, you should be paying attention to the omitted elements, namely. Bridging trusses in the one way areas, Clip angles throughout, Strap anchors, Shear studs and other slab reinforcement elements.
 
gerrycan said:
I have already come to the conclusion that the trusses were mixed, as I stated on here weeks ago.
Click to expand...
And you'd be wrong based on the amount of your supporting evidence that has been shot down.

I suppose you'll never learn.

Are you just mad because someone just got banned again?
 
gamolon said:
And you'd be wrong based on the amount of your supporting evidence that has been shot down.

I suppose you'll never learn.

Are you just mad because someone just got banned again?
Click to expand...

Gamolon. I really have no clue wtf you are on about. Seriously, if I had any inclination to go over the whole shear stud WTC7 issue with you, I would start a thrad here and do it. I have no interest whatsoever in the jref forum.

You're being paranoid.
 
gerrycan said:
Gamolon. I really have no clue wtf you are on about. Seriously, if I had any inclination to go over the whole shear stud WTC7 issue with you, I would start a thrad here and do it. I have no interest whatsoever in the jref forum.

You're being paranoid.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say gerrycan...

;)
 
gamolon said:
Whatever you say gerrycan...

;)
Click to expand...

Gamolon. We can disagree about 911, we can have banter and call each other names and laugh at each other or get angry about it - all of that stuff. That's fine. I actually enjoy our interaction because it does at times raise interesting issues that I would otherwise not have come accross.

We all have our personality traits and good and bad points to boot. In all seriousness, if you are so close to this issue and so heavily invested in defending NIST that you are getting paranoid about people on other forums perhaps being me and somehow trying to interfere with your debunking attempts, then that's an issue you should deal with. And I say that as one human being to another and not in a bad way.
 
gerrycan said:
Gamolon. We can disagree about 911, we can have banter and call each other names and laugh at each other or get angry about it - all of that stuff. That's fine. I actually enjoy our interaction because it does at times raise interesting issues that I would otherwise not have come accross.

We all have our personality traits and good and bad points to boot. In all seriousness, if you are so close to this issue and so heavily invested in defending NIST that you are getting paranoid about people on other forums perhaps being me and somehow trying to interfere with your debunking attempts, then that's an issue you should deal with. And I say that as one human being to another and not in a bad way.
Click to expand...
Moving back on topic...

Did the bridging trusses have round bar that formed knuckles above the floor pan for making them composite with the concrete floor?
 
gamolon said:
Moving back on topic...

Did the bridging trusses have round bar that formed knuckles above the floor pan for making them composite with the concrete floor?
Click to expand...

Make your point. Pick the bones out of whatever you like, but try to avoid sweeping statements re the floor system.
Suffice to say that the primary trusses did not always have protruding knuckles in all areas.

Are you asking about the bridging area at the core to office transition ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom