Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns

enik said:
Yes I did.
Click to expand...

And your analysis didn't apply AISC Appendix 7, which is why your numbers are different than mine.

You could have just posted that, rather than trying to get me to duplicate your work.
 
enik said:
Can you show AISC Appendix 7 to everyone (or the relevant parts)?
Click to expand...

If you can find it on the internet, go for it. But it's a copyrighted document and it would be against the membership agreement for me to post it. I'd like to not get banned.
 
911 is an inside job for enik - the goal posts will be moving soon

enik said:
Can you show AISC Appendix 7 to everyone (or the relevant parts)?
Click to expand...

Can you explain how you will show CD did WTC 1? How is your inside job stuff going? Was it the military, the covert cain of command, never tell stuff?
clean up any leftover evidence of their presence afterwards. In essence, covert military operations.
Click to expand...

To prove 911 was not an inside job? This is what it takes for you?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3909146/1/ For me? Prove that WTC 1 can gravity collapse without collapsing the top 12 floors, and not point to Bazant. Prove to me that a sagging truss has the capability to pull in a perimeter wall, and not point to Usmani. And finally, prove the initiation sequence of collapse which no one has yet proved. Give me one of those three and I will leave the truth movement.
Click to expand...

When will you prove/show...
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/4724858/1/
Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1
Click to expand...
Are you serious, in the Physics of WTC 1, is inside job evidence? That is nonsense, right, you were teasing the Loose Change posters?
Can you demonstrate the sagging floors did not pull the shell in?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Can you demonstrate the sagging floors did not pull the shell in?
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate that they did?

And no cheating... or looking at the person next to you taking the test... Do you own work... You're allowed to refer to the AISC manual. You have 1 hr to complete the test.

Archi(tect) Bunker
 
JSanderO said:
Can you demonstrate that they did?

And no cheating... or looking at the person next to you taking the test... Do you own work... You're allowed to refer to the AISC manual. You have 1 hr to complete the test.

Archi(tect) Bunker
Click to expand...
Good job, jump on enik's inside job nonsense. Be like a Gage reunion.

... WTC towers collapsed due to aircraft impacts and fire. If you think otherwise, you have to prove it. But feel free to do your political engineering, where opinions, lies and fantasy rule. The reason you fell for Gage's nonsense. Now you are poorly supporting enik's inside job claptrap.

How will you help enik prove the inside job?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/4724858/1/
Inside Job Evidence is in the Physics of WTC #1
Click to expand...

Can you help him prove the shell did not bow in?

Will you wave your hands, and make up the core fell first, no math, just make it up? Not able to do the model, so you make up woo?
wtc2bowing.jpg


enik can't prove his inside job, he makes a challenge, it is already done, but he ignores, and moves on. Like you, you fail to do the research and can't comment on the OP. You don't do models, you think they are cartoons. Cartoons? You don't do science. No wonder you fell for Gage.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
Can you demonstrate that they did?

And no cheating... or looking at the person next to you taking the test... Do you own work... You're allowed to refer to the AISC manual. You have 1 hr to complete the test.

Archi(tect) Bunker
Click to expand...

Not necessary. The only hypothesis that fits all the evidence and doesn't rely on unknown entities is that the the sagging floors pulled in the outer supports. Since that's the only hypothesis, that's the one we're going with until a better one comes along.

I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be something else, it's just the reasonable thing to accept as a default position.
 
beachnut said:
...Are you serious, in the Physics of WTC 1, is inside job evidence? That is nonsense, right, you were teasing the Loose Change posters?
Can you demonstrate the sagging floors did not pull the shell in?
Click to expand...
Any reason you don't go over to that site and ask those questions?
 
aggle-rithm said:
...I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be something else, it's just the reasonable thing to accept as a default position.
Click to expand...
And yet this entire challenge is trying to support the NIST hypothesis. Why don't you give it a try.
 
JSanderO said:
Can you demonstrate that they did?

And no cheating... or looking at the person next to you taking the test... Do you own work... You're allowed to refer to the AISC manual. You have 1 hr to complete the test.

Archi(tect) Bunker
Click to expand...

There are facts on the table that preclude having to compute the fracture tension on truss connections.
-perimeter columns did bow inwards
- there were large multi-floor office fires
- heat causes steel and concrete to expand and to later lose strength (by spalling in concrete and directly affecting steel properties)

No other proposition has been brought forth to explain the inward bowing of the perimeter columns, thus by way of reason and logic, some mechanism driven by the heat of the fires, caused the trusses to pull on the columns and bring them out of vertical enough to allow eccentric loading to become the dominant cause of continued bowing.

Unles that is, you have another explaination.........I mean you DO have a point, right?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom