- Status
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
If you've followed my posts it's not about liking or disliking your conclusions. You have made a stated intent to avoid discussing anything you deem poisonous to your case. Which essentially makes your most optimistic "outcome" a question of which hair splitting straw ultimately caused a major column in a building to fail that we already know failed. Since the level of detail you focus on is based on "most probable" mechanisms, they are by definition not absolute, nor critical at the macroscopic level. This is because "IF" you're arguing against the fire induced collapse scenario you're basically trying to falsify one facet of the failure sequence which can simply be replaced with an alternative whose greatest effect will be on building codes and vulnerabilities rather than demonstrating something other than fire was the proximate cause of the collapse.
These details do have a place for big time importance, but in the context of examining a proximate culprit, it's scope doesn't have that much reach, it's scope would be relevant to future building and construction practices..
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Is that the problem, there are no words for you to describe where the other end was?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You misunderstood my question, which may very well be due to my wording it.
You didn't read my clarification, did you?
And you still did not answer:
Are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?
Now back to the question about lateral movement of columns:
You had essentially claimed that columns in the 16-story model were fixed in the x- and y-direction.
You referenced something.
I showed you that the reference explained how columns in the 16-story model were fixed laterally only on bottom and on top.
This implies that columns would have moved laterally, in x- and y-directions, if sufficient lateral forces arose.
This would happen in the real world as well as in the 16-story model between bottom and top: Columns are pushed and pulled here and there by expanding, contracting, sagging etc horizontal members, depending on heating history and loads.
Is that true or is that not true?
It's there on the picture that I posted to save you having to look at the drawings. As you were told several times earlier the beam was connected to C38. The other end was connected to the girder that was said to have been pushed.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
All of this is so pointless.
Unfortunately for the CT's one of their favorite slogans; "Did you know a 3rd building fell on 9/11" is also one of the most compelling arguments against CD. The average Joe on the street doesn't know about Building 7. They know about the Twin Towers, they know about the Pentagon and they know about Shanksville but most folks don't know about or don't remember Building 7.
Why?
Because it doesn't really matter.
Or to put it into the context of this discussion - there was no reason to take the enormous risk and complexity of blowing up an unimportant, not-iconic, boring office building few people had heard of, cared about or would remember. Blowing up 7 achieves nothing. The loss of Building 7 is incidental to the greater events of 9/11/2001 and really only of academic interest to folks in the building industry. You can learn no more about the who/what/when/where/why/how of 9/11 studying 7 than you can studying the loss of St. Nicholas Church.
I prefer working from the start with what we know rather than the bass ackwards CT way of starting at the end with what we don't know (then implying what we don't know is suspicious).
Investigating the case properly we can say 7 WTC caught fire when the North Tower fell.
We can say that due to the lack of water pressure and the loss of firefighters and equipment there was no effective effort to suppress or extinguish those fires.
We can say those fires were allowed to spread unabated for 7 hours - well in excess of the buildings fire rating - across many floors simultaneously.
We can say by early afternoon there were multiple reports of instability within the structure and that it had started to lean.
We can say by mid-afternoon the precarious state of the building had become so obvious the area around it was evacuated, even though that meant terminating some rescue and recovery efforts.
Then we can say that starting around 5:20 pm the structure began to collapse in stages progressing from the east to the west, a collapse so sudden and quiet it caught many people off guard.
Prima facie, 7 hours of un-suppressed and un-fought fires doomed 7 WTC.
Remember, 7 WTC is the CT's Alamo. They failed with CD at the Twin Towers, shoot-downs in Shanksville and missiles at the Pentagon because the evidence for those attacks was to obvious and available. Because 7 WTC was not iconic, and no one was killed or injured there, and there was no mystery from people close to the situation as to what caused its collapse (indeed, it being expected hours before it collapsed that it would) not a lot of attention was paid to this incident. That created the perfect vacuum for CT's to fill with their own narrative and sell to a public unfamiliar with that part of the story.
But really all the attention given to 7 WTC by CT's is just more evidence of epic CT failure.
Unfortunately for the CT's one of their favorite slogans; "Did you know a 3rd building fell on 9/11" is also one of the most compelling arguments against CD. The average Joe on the street doesn't know about Building 7. They know about the Twin Towers, they know about the Pentagon and they know about Shanksville but most folks don't know about or don't remember Building 7.
Why?
Because it doesn't really matter.
Or to put it into the context of this discussion - there was no reason to take the enormous risk and complexity of blowing up an unimportant, not-iconic, boring office building few people had heard of, cared about or would remember. Blowing up 7 achieves nothing. The loss of Building 7 is incidental to the greater events of 9/11/2001 and really only of academic interest to folks in the building industry. You can learn no more about the who/what/when/where/why/how of 9/11 studying 7 than you can studying the loss of St. Nicholas Church.
I prefer working from the start with what we know rather than the bass ackwards CT way of starting at the end with what we don't know (then implying what we don't know is suspicious).
Investigating the case properly we can say 7 WTC caught fire when the North Tower fell.
We can say that due to the lack of water pressure and the loss of firefighters and equipment there was no effective effort to suppress or extinguish those fires.
We can say those fires were allowed to spread unabated for 7 hours - well in excess of the buildings fire rating - across many floors simultaneously.
We can say by early afternoon there were multiple reports of instability within the structure and that it had started to lean.
We can say by mid-afternoon the precarious state of the building had become so obvious the area around it was evacuated, even though that meant terminating some rescue and recovery efforts.
Then we can say that starting around 5:20 pm the structure began to collapse in stages progressing from the east to the west, a collapse so sudden and quiet it caught many people off guard.
Prima facie, 7 hours of un-suppressed and un-fought fires doomed 7 WTC.
Remember, 7 WTC is the CT's Alamo. They failed with CD at the Twin Towers, shoot-downs in Shanksville and missiles at the Pentagon because the evidence for those attacks was to obvious and available. Because 7 WTC was not iconic, and no one was killed or injured there, and there was no mystery from people close to the situation as to what caused its collapse (indeed, it being expected hours before it collapsed that it would) not a lot of attention was paid to this incident. That created the perfect vacuum for CT's to fill with their own narrative and sell to a public unfamiliar with that part of the story.
But really all the attention given to 7 WTC by CT's is just more evidence of epic CT failure.
In NISTs own analysis the columns did not buckle until after floor failure. As for the real world the connection at C38 would fail also and prevent NIST from their original estimate of 5.5" expansion. The girder would therefor not have been assumed to have failed in those circumstances. At that point NIST would be forced to try a different hypothesis.
Other than Oystein, am I the only one who can see this ? ^
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Ah, so there was a girder there that was pushed. How far off did it get at the point of failure?
How far off what?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
The answer to that is not allowed under the 'new approach', it appears.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
How far off was it from design in the x, y and z axes at the time of connection failure?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Is a column not deformed or out of position until it buckles?
I have already posted NISTs criteria to deem this element to have failed and stated why it is in error.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
And this was determined but what methods? Back of a napkin?
You need to rephrase that into something coherent.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
That’s because he also does not know the difference between bending and buckling. Being incompetent at structural engineering does not prevent conspiracists from being loudly wrong.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
But you know it's wrong. By what methods?
- Status