• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
Too late, Chris.

The answer is that theta = sin-1(deflection/(.5*length of beam)).

That one was trivially easy, but you couldn't get there.

Now explain where he gets "deflection".

That one is harder.
 
Animal said:
With a composite floor, sag cannot be determined (and is likely minimal) since the shear bolts would provide support even if the concrete has fractured and or the bolts yielded. There is also a lot of other miscellaneous construction that could have prevented sag in the floor beams.
Click to expand...
Baseless opinion. This is what happens.

"After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

meridian6.png
 
tfk said:
Too late, Chris.

The answer is that theta = sin-1(deflection/(.5*length of beam)).

That one was trivially easy, but you couldn't get there.

Now explain where he gets "deflection".

That one is harder.
Click to expand...
I understand the results which is all that is necessary. You cannot refute the results so you attack the messenger.

Address the point.
 
Chris7,

And do you know what is going to be an even harder question for you to answer? This one.

The answer to the "theta" question is sitting right in front of anyone who understands 9th grade trigonometry.

It should have taken you about 10 seconds - TOPS - to figure it, and 1 minute - TOPS - to write it down.

You couldn't do either.

Now, here's my question.

Where in the Wide, Wide World of Sports does some ignorant, pompous toad who knows that he can't even produce 9th grade trig get the rudeness, the balls and the "suicidal urge when engaged in an engineering debate" to tell an engineer that "he's not a real engineer except in his mind"?

I am really curious.

You'll understand, of course, that my posts to you will have a little extra, uh, "spice" to them in the future.

Of course you will...
 
Christopher7 said:
Baseless opinion. This is what happens.

"After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

[qimg]http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6915/meridian6.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Baseless assumption on your part. But then that is nothing new.
 
tfk said:
Chris7,
You'll understand, of course, that my posts to you will have a little extra, uh, "spice" to them in the future.

Of course you will...
Click to expand...
No worries mate. Your posts say more about you than me, so have at it.

An engineer would refute or accept the data provided by an engineer.

A crankster would attack the engineer and the person who posted his analysis.
 
jaydeehess said:
he was querying you on themethod by which the results were arrived at
You could not answer, so why would your belief in them be compelling?
Click to expand...
It's not about me or my belief as y'all try to make it.

The data is valid. Disprove it or accept it.
 
Christopher7 said:
No worries mate. Your posts say more about you than me, so have at it.

An engineer would refute or accept the data provided by an engineer.

A crankster would attack the engineer and the person who posted his analysis.
Click to expand...

Hang on... you fancy yourself an engineer??

How can you have a shred of professionalism, when you refuse to even present evidence for your claims?

What is it about you twoofers that cause you to just ignore the fact that nothing points to controlled demo? I mean, literally NOTHING. You have NO EVIDENCE!!

GET A NEW HOBBY
 
Let me adjust the order.

Christopher7 said:
You cannot refute the results so you attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Until Tony produces his complete analysis, there are no "results".

Christopher7 said:
Address the point.
Click to expand...

I AM addressing the point, Mr. Sarns.

The only point that matters from here on out, between you & me.

YOU are missing the point.

The point has got nothing to do with thermal expansion or sag of beams.

Allow me to make my point clear & unequivocal, so that even you can understand it.

Christopher7 said:
I understand the results which is all that is necessary.
Click to expand...

You, Chris, are incompetent to understand the most rudimentary of math, analysis or engineering. By your own admission, 8th grade algebra is "Greek" to you. The truth of these statements has been demonstrated again & again & again. This was merely the latest example.

You, Chris, are incompetent to understand how these results were derived.

You, Chris, are incompetent to produce the least critique to verify that the results may, or may not be, correct.

Therefore, Chris, at the most basic, most important level, you do NOT understand the results.

Therefore, Chris, you are incompetent to understand my comments on those results.

I'll save the both of us your embarrassment, and direct my comments elsewhere.

This will be my recurring point to you from now on.

Is that clear enough for you?

Have I made my point crystal clear?
 
Christopher7 said:
No worries mate. Your posts say more about you than me, so have at it.

An engineer would refute or accept the data provided by an engineer.

A crankster would attack the engineer and the person who posted his analysis.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

An engineer would ask the other engineer to post his assumption, his equations, his analysis methods, etc.

Just like I've done with Tony.

An engineer would respond to this request with "Absolutely. Here is the quick outline. [detailed verbal explanation provided] It'll take me a day or so to gather the rest. I'll post it as soon as I have it."

Please observe what Tony has done.

The fact that Tony has not replied to my request is quite unsurprising.

The fact that you are so totally wrong about "what an engineer would do" is equally unsurprising.
 
tfk said:
Is that clear enough for you?

Have I made my point crystal clear?
Click to expand...
Yes - you waste a lot of column space avoiding the fact that thermal expansion could not push the girder off its seat.

I posted the formulas again for you. Do the math. Prove the data Tony provided wrong or accept the results from someone who really is a professional engineer.


ETA: The things he considered are listed across the top of the spreadsheet I posted. That tells you his analysis method. If you really were an engineer, you would see that everything you need to recreate his analysis is in my post.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Yes - you waste a lot of column space avoiding the fact that thermal expansion could not push the girder off its seat.

I posted the formulas again for you. Do the math. Prove the data Tony provided wrong or accept the results from someone who really is a professional engineer.
Click to expand...

I'll do the math as soon as you produce evidence for your claims.

AND

My offer of leaving JREF stands. You produce the evidence, you never hear from me again. I mean, how sweet would that be?
 
All right, Chris.

This is now YOUR assertion.

Christopher7 said:
I posted the formulas again for you.

ETA: The things he considered are listed across the top of the spreadsheet I posted. That tells you his analysis method. If you really were an engineer, you would see that everything you need to recreate his analysis is in my post.
Click to expand...

Copy & paste - from your post - the equation that he used to generate his deflection values.

Or be proven incompetent to understand even this 5th grade requirement.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you constantly attack people because they don't put their actual names on this forum?

Is it because you cannot attack the math and engineering that they use to prove your delusions wrong? Hum.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom