Not really, he kept saying that the I was wrong to say the static analysis was inappropriate because A) static analysis is commonly used to simulate building response to single common removal, and B) figure 4.14 (the leaning rainbow building with fewer glitches) was "not the analysis, just a visualization of the analysis".Did he contribute any insight?
I tried to explain that linear static analysis works fine for limited column removal if the loads can be redistributed without much movement or deformation. But he kept saying I was a liar and that I didn't understand.
I also tried to explain that the visualization of a static analysis would show the actual positions and orientation of the building structural members. But he seemed to keep saying that it was "a visualization" like it was some kind of artistic interpretation and that I was an idiot/liar he was going to expose to the real engineers.
However, it was a very helpful discussion as my attempts to explain things to him let me to discover the information I discussed in the above few posts.
To be clear (since people might suspect I'm suppressing his Truth) Gerrycan was banned (several times) for being very rude (not just impolite, but hurling streams of colorful insults in PMs.) Perhaps he's just a passionate Scot, but it was highly inappropiate, so he had to go. But he does read Metabunk, to gather more evidence of how wrong I am.