enik your silly and dishonest nonsense continues. Whilst ever you persist in deliberately misrepresenting what I say I will from time to time expose your untruths.
You have the gall to post this bit of rubbish conflating several unrelated issues. All of them relying on your deliberately ambiguous writing.
This is a very simple challenge to demonstrate that a sagging floor truss will pull in the perimeter wall. 1 Ozeco41 posted on another thread that "catenary sag is a very effective force multiplier"2 but does not provide any basis for the statement.3 The NIST report mentions catenary in relation to the sagging floor truss,4 so maybe that is what he meant. 5 He got angry at me for challenging him6 on such a simple concept.7 Understandable.8 Quite simply, his statement is incorrect9 unless he can demonstrate that a sagging truss will actually pull in the perimeter columns.10
1 That was your original OP for his thread. I demonstrated some months back that you had reduced the topic scope to a simplified abstraction which did not represent the real WTC collapse event.
2 Correct. It was a simple and correct statement in support of a totally different explanation. I have already explained
in this thread and in detail why it was true. You have not responded to that explanation. The truth of my original claim does not in anyway depend on the OP challenge of this thread.
3 False on at least three grounds:
a) It was and remains a self explanatory simple bit of applied physics for which which no honest competent engineer should need any explanation. It is axiomatic.
b) I have already explained in some detail both why it is correct and why your claims are false;
c) Your original false claim was in another thread where your transparent intention was to assist Tony Sz's false claims by derailing THAT thread.
4 As irrelevant as the fact that man has walked on the moon. I said nothing about NIST. What NIST says has nothing to do with my simple and true statement of a basic fact of physics.
5 What I meant AND why I said it was obvious in the original setting on another thread. And I have
explained it previously in this thread despite your false claims to the contrary.
6 I simply rebutted your dishonest nonsense. No anger. Objective reasoning when I should possible have ignored your nonsense.
7 Your projection. My concept was simple. I find it hard to believe that you could not understand the simple concept AFTER it has been explained in language suitable for a ten year old.
8 Whatever that lie by innuendo means.
9 Prove it. The basic bit of physics is the claim that if a rope is tied tautly between two end points and a sideways force is applied to the middle of the rope the pull in on the end points will be several times larger than the applied sideways force. So you need to show that the "end pull in" will NOT be larger than the applied force. Best of luck proving that one. BTW Tony Sz understood the point in its original setting so my use of the example was effective for the purpose I used it.
10 Two untruths - in reverse order:
a) It was a stand alone comment about a physics reality which explains but does not rely on pulling in the WTC columns. All same as a simple assertion that "Gravity pulls downwards" is (1) True and (2) does not apply only to WTC. By the way that is an "analogy" so use it as such.
b) The truth of the original statement AND the truth of "gravity pulls downwards" do not require my proof
AND there are two more bits of lie by innuendo nonsense in this section
10 but I will leave them for you to find for yourself.
Please desist from your dishonest nonsense. It is tiresome rebutting your falsehoods, especially when you pretend that I have not already explained and you do not address those earlier explanations.
