We presented the facts and as usual, y'all denied them.
NIST omitted the flange stiffeners.
NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans say it is 1' 0" wide.
They did this to get their walk-off theory to work. That is fraud.
gerrycan pointed out that even if the girder did walk off the seat, it would land on the support plate. Y'all just denied it.
Tony did the math and proved that thermal expansion could not push the girder more than 4 3/4" so girder walk-off could not happen. No one provided any calculations to disprove Tony. Y'all gust refused to believe it.
Denial means never having to say you were wrong. How sweet it is.
Just change the subject and babble endlessly about something else.
You are fooling no one. The lurkers can see the double talk, subject shift and endless irrelevant chatter to muddy the waters.
C7 believe it or not I admire the trolling job you do. I don't personally see the point or the motivation BUT it is your thing and you have managed to prevent discussion progressing for quite some time. I find it amusing that many people fall for it - the main trick that is - of focussing on an irrelevant detail whilst ensuring that the real issues are not discussed. I don't play those games.
Meanwhile I have also watched TS do what he does best. That is present mathematics which look impressive to lay people WHILST having his foundation premises wrong. I recall a paper he published back in 2007 and my comment which was the first post I ever made on the Internet. My second paragraph said this:
Me posting as econ41 on Dawkins Forum 14 Nov 2007 said:
The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
The same comment goes for two other of TS's papers, one I cannot recall the name, the other the well known "Missing Jolt". So all three papers make the same error. They rest on a false underlying model or understanding of what actually happened. Then a layer of detailed maths which is of zero value given that the base premises are wrong. But it serves to fool the gullible.
I will limit myself to commenting on three issues in this post:
FIRST: The fact which, as far as I can tell, everyone is ignoring about the collapse of Col 79. Most if not all of the building frame members related to Col79 had been subject to high temperatures. Inevitably it follows that the original stresses/loadings in the frame would have been altered drastically. Thermal induced creep would have allowed loadings/stresses to redistribute. That means that the conditions which originally established the gap measured to several decimal places between Col79 and Col44 were all shot to pieces. So all the precise computations by both sides of the argument are codswallop. Don't even ask me what the changed conditions were....no one could tell other than it would be different. Therefore all of TS's nonsense about thermal elongation/contraction and sag is based on bull crap. As are the responses which claim to rebut him BTW. There is a remote possibility that both sides could be right given the random unpredictable nature of the changes which the fires moving through the areas would have caused. Ironically your argument that fires moved and that they were not at hottest at certain times probably adds to the randomness. You could be proving what you want to disprove. BUT another irony is that neither I nor anyone else can "prove" it one way or the other.
SECOND: you have fallen for your (and TS's) own trap by limiting your arguments to the false subset. So all the red bits in this quote are wrong due to false base premises or false conterxt:
We presented the facts and as usual, y'all denied them.
NIST omitted the flange stiffeners.
NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans say it is 1' 0" wide.
They did this to get their walk-off theory to work. That is fraud.
gerrycan pointed out that even if the girder did walk off the seat, it would land on the support plate. Y'all just denied it.
Tony did the math and proved that thermal expansion could not push the girder more than 4 3/4" so girder walk-off could not happen. No one provided any calculations to disprove Tony. Y'all gust refused to believe it.
Denial means never having to say you were wrong. How sweet it is.
Just change the subject and babble endlessly about something else.
You are fooling no one. The lurkers can see the double talk, subject shift and endless irrelevant chatter to muddy the waters.
THIRD: Some minor issues of debating tactics.
"We presented the facts..." You (plural) presented that subset of facts which suited your claims.
"...y'all denied them." False. I pointed to the error on the other thread and back at post 151 on this thread. So "...y'all" is wrong. "Most of you...' probably correct. But don't include me and a couple of others.
"They did this to get their walk-off theory to work." I'm aware of TS shift of objective to become "prove NIST wrong". I'm not interested in whether NIST is right in all details. Separate argument to back that if needed and if I can be bothered. I prefer not to argue debating tactics if it can be avoided.
"That is fraud." I've already cautioned you as to the legal issue in that claim.
"No one provided any calculations to disprove Tony." Tony has not made a claim worthy of disproving...just because other members don't see his errors doesn't make his nonsense correct. The underlying faith in calculations is misplaced when the model the calcs are applied to is wrong.
"Denial means never having to say you were wrong. How sweet it is.
Just change the subject and babble endlessly about something else." Applies to you but not me. I have pointed to the main missing factor. You (plural) are denying and evading.
"You are fooling no one. The lurkers can see the double talk, subject shift and endless irrelevant chatter to muddy the waters." I am sure you are right. You just have the target wrong.
