There is no challenge. Nobody, including NIST, has ever mentioned the things you are trying to make into something here without even providing some form of basis that there could be an effect...
OK so you either misunderstand or choose to misrepresent my statements. I will go just one mini step in "spoon feeding" on the key error in this first paragraph.
WTC7 had been subjected to fires which would have caused thermal induced stress changes in the members within the area you want to consider AND ALSO the adjoining members. I say those thermal stresses would have had some effect, that the extent of the effect would be near impossible to predict or model and that you have neglected to address it. THEREFORE your claim fails BECAUSE YOU WON'T ADDRESS THAT FACTOR. (And not whether I am right or wrong
) You claim implicitly that there was no such effect. I say you are wrong.
* AND since your claim is your burden of proof I say you cannot meet your burden of proof. That is the key point - failure to meet burden of proof. To meet that burden of proof you would need to demonstrate either of the two conditions I identified in my earlier post AND which you misrepresented as "prove a negative".
So the issue of difference here is that I have identified an engineering technical issue with which you cannot or will not address with reasoning to the appropriate standard of proof and which I have demonstrated is necessary to satisfy your burden of proof. The dominant issue is your inability to meet your burden of proof independent of anything I say. You problem not mine. Hence all your attempts to shift the onus to me are bound to fail.
...You are stopped before you started because you have presented no case to begin with....
For the umpteenth time it is your claim. I have identified an engineering technical issue which you have failed to address. Stop trying to reverse burden of proof.
...Your whole notion here has to be summed up as nothing more than unrealistic mental meanderings. If you were able to show just a scintilla of proof that the columns could have moved in a way that could have affected the outcome of whether that girder could have walked off its seat maybe you would have an argument....
Watch my lips!! It is your claim and your claim relies on the columns being unaffected by heat. I have demonstrated "reasonable doubt". It is not my burden to instruct or assist you in resolving that doubt. I don't think it is possible to resolve that doubt THEREFORE you have failed in your claim unless you can make it via some other avenue of argument.
... But you haven't and you have no legitimate argument....
The only thing I have done in the technical sense is identify a factor you have not addressed and are not willing to address. It puts a fatal flaw in your argument. I am not the one putting the claim you are.
... You are asking me to prove that by firing a rocket I am not putting a hole in space.
Not so (again..sheesh
) Your claim requires that the column and to girder relationship be unaffected by heat. That is YOUR claim which requires that. You have not established that your premise is valid. Therefore your claim fails.
All your evasions and snide comments will not change that situation. So I will take it that you are not interested in taking part in reasoned legitimate discussion other than technical discussion which ignores key factors. So be it. I won't waste any more time.
Other members will no doubt notice that the harder I press you for reasoning the more desperate your evasions and name calling become.
I won't retaliate in that style.
Cheers.
* PS For the benefit of other members
Here is the simple version of Tony's base assumption. He is assuming that the two columns 79 and 44 remain in their original condition of end relation to the girder. I say he has to support that assumption by reasoning which he hasn't done and denies the need to do it. So it is a burden of proof issue but dealing with a technical assumption which he is making. That assumption is implicitly one of either:
A) All the structural elements - girder and floor beams between Col79 and Col44 were affected by temperature so that Tony can predict length changes and sagging to within decimals of an inch WHILST Col79 and Col44 and all the other elements were not affected by heat expansion or stress re-distribution. i.e. The lot between col79 and col44 got hot and bothered whilst the columns and adjoining other members remained cool.
OR
B) All the effects referred to in "A)" by some massive coincidence managed to cancel out so they did not affect the space between the two columns.
I suggest that both those alternates are ridiculous but the beauty of the argument is that whether I am right or not is irrelevant. I don't have to be right on the technical bit. A good position to be in if it's not too subtle a point to make. Tony has to address those two to meet his burden of proof or his claim fails. If he proves me wrong his claim can them go to the next stage where I have a few more strings to my bow....but save that for later.
