Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

tfk said:
No, bill.

This is a FINE example of how you do NOT read very carefully. Nor comprehend the concepts that we present to you. (Excuse the chippiness, guys. Bill & I have a long, contentious history.)

I said, exactly, "cardboard is a VERY poor model for steel". This addresses the difference in the INTRINSIC property of two material known as "elastic strain". This is a number that is very high for steel (meaning that it DOES act like a spring, and many springs are made from steel) and very low for cardboard (hence the extreme rarity of cardboard springs).

You focused on the EXTRINSIC properties of the two materials once they had been fashioned into box columns.

The fact of the matter is "what I said is true". A cardboard box column is a LOUSY model for a steel box column. ESPECIALLY with regard to the specific performance that we are currently discussing: elastic (as opposed to plastic) deformation.

The "amount" of deflection has little to do with the amount of stored ELASTIC energy. A box column made out of play-doh will give you an enormous amount of deflection and virtually zero stored energy. One made out of glass will give you ZERO deflection and zero stored energy.

A steel box column, especially one as big as the towers' supports, will elastically store and enormous amount of energy. It does NOT have to deflect a lot in order to do so. A cardboard box column, no matter what its size, will elastically store almost none.

tk

PS. bill, steel is VERY much an elastic solid. Cardboard is not.

PPS. Guys, it is rather pointless to suggest to bill that he read either NIST or 9-11 Commission Report. He not only has not read it. He WILL NOT read it.

You see, he refuses to contaminate his foregone (& YouTube validated) conclusions with the politically motivated swill of NIST or MIT or Purdue scientists & engineers. Since all of those folks are clearly government shills & lackeys. Even the independent ones, like me.
Click to expand...

Well now Teddy -so you wan to come out of the closet ? I still uggest that you are talking about the properties of steel as opposed to cardboard while I was talking about the structure of the box column. If you bend a box column of whatever stiff aterial it will kink very early in the bending. Less bend....less stored potential energy...no spring out 200 feet....uniformly throughout the building.
 
C7

Shedding is not a factor in the first second of the collapse. Not enough is shed to allow the uppermost floor below, to withstand the weight above breaking the floor connections on the perimeter or the core.

Correct?
 
Christopher7 said:
Bazant does NOT explain what ejected the large steel pieces or how much energy it took.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep ignoring me?

[latex]K_e = \frac{1}{2} m v^2[/latex]
(TeX integration might be broken)

Put your numbers into this formula and we can see how much energy you think it took.
 
Christopher7 said:
He did not show how that energy ejected the 4 ton framework sections up to 500 feet laterally, unless you think compressed air did it. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Is there a distance at which the lateral ejection of debris during the collapse would not be suspiciously inconsistent with the official story?
 
BenBurch said:
No, that is what I am saying. I don't speak for Bazant. Learn just a little about strength of materials and how they fail and you'll stop being a truther.
Click to expand...

Its going to take more than that.
 
e^n said:
Why do you keep ignoring me?
Click to expand...
[satire]Because you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. ;)

latex.php
latex.php

(TeX integration might be broken)

Put your numbers into this formula and we can see how much energy you think it took.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the point which is:
Bazant does NOT explain what ejected the large steel pieces or how much energy it took.
 
Christopher7 said:
Bazant does NOT explain what ejected the large steel pieces or how much energy it took.
Click to expand...

Why are you taking Bazant, an paper that was a practically a first attempt to explain the collapse utterly superseded by among other things the NIST report, as Gospel on ANYTHING?

I mean, that would be like me using Lord Kelvin's computed age of the Earth in a geology argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom