Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Hellbound said:
Actually, no one can swing at them because you're currently throwing to your center fielder.

But that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a relief pitcher throw 105 mph fastballs at the fans. Oops, security is arresting him for assault with no evidence.
 
DGM said:
I'm guessing that he's one of Bill's buddies from Utube. Same lack of knowledge on the subject. (I hope there's more this is funny)
Click to expand...

Well. if so, then it appears Bill called out the big guns. LOL What a joke
 
bob the analyst said:
bnot familiar with Gage, does he have a fmea report, if so, invite him into this discussion, while you are at it. invite anyone and everyone from popular mechanics, the nist ot any other body that supports the nist point of view...you shills will need to be heavily armed to take on me, if you think that you are in my league, go get yourself some more troops...as yopu can see, I have only toyed with you people, sure i have thrown great fastballs, hard and heavy and no swings as of yet...you have not come close to being able to show me that you can hit what I can reach back and throw
Click to expand...

Man, looks like you're deliberately throwing your balls wide (dunno what the term is since I don't play rounders).
 
Christopher7 said:
...

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.
Click to expand...

No, NIST explained why they STARTED to collapse, and proved beyond any doubt that collapse once started could not be arrested.

Bazant gave a good early try. Now not used in reference except by truthers. Still he proved, also beyond doubt, that the collapse once started could not be arrested.

Now, son, give me your calculations and simulations that explain the how and the why? Then we have a basis for continuing this discussion.
 
Christopher7 said:
Look it up and stop asking stupid questions.
Click to expand...

You know the answer, and you know I know the answer. But even you should be honest enough to admit that, with the initial quality of his posts, Bob has not made it readily apparent that he knows the answer.
 
After Heiwa announced he was going skiing I was worried for a moment but no, the crazy is on again. The shift from gravity driven collapse being impossible to unnecessary fireproofing was smooth. Keep it up boys.
 
Silly people! Carbohydrates can't hurt steel. Why, I just smacked an I-beam with a turkey sandwich (Perdue turkey, BTW, purchased at Purdue) and it had no effect on the beam at all!

Anyone have a mop?
 
DGM said:
I'm guessing that he's one of Bill's buddies from Utube. Same lack of knowledge on the subject. (I hope there's more this is funny)
Click to expand...

I'm betting they are both Tyler Durden. "What happens at JREF, stays at JREF."
 
bob the analyst said:
has anyone ever uncovered a FMEA--failure mode effect analysis..both pre and post 9/11 from the NIST.... no report could not be done without one being performed

FMEA can provide an analytical approach, when dealing with potential failure modes and their associated causes. When considering possible failures in a design – like safety, cost, performance, quality and reliability – an engineer can get a lot of information about how to alter the development/manufacturing process, in order to avoid these failures. FMEA provides an easy tool to determine which risk has the greatest concern, and therefore an action is needed to prevent a problem before it arises.The development of these specifications will ensure the product will meet the defined requirements. post failure FMEA's would also have to be performed.... it is a requirment for analysis....you see the NIST has never done this and it becomes heresy to the world enginnering community at large
Click to expand...

bob the analyst said:
more cut and paste nonsense,,,just what we need another guy that knows how to use wikipedia..<rolls eyes> and laughs
Click to expand...

Funny you'd say that, since the hilited portion of your post above is cut and pasted directly from Wikipedia.
 
bob the analyst said:
I guess it all my fault that I put you on the spot the way that I did, you got called out on 3 quick pitches, you never got even a chance to swing, as soon as i made a valid compariosn of rust proofing and undercotaing with fire protection, that prety much sent you into a tizzy.

then the fact about hydro-carbon..nongasseous or electric arc furnaces..then to top it all off I asked for your input and for you to pull out the much need, the valued, the omno-potent, ultra critical FMEA report and analysis and you went wandering around a broken glass filled room like a blind man would with out shoes on your feet
Click to expand...
First of all the NIST report IS a FMEA. Second hydrocarbon is one word. Your pathetic.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Had the whole of the structure been a single entity as opposed to a large system I might agree with your response, however we're not treating the structure as a monolithic entity. During the collapse it was clear that as a system the structure worked extremely well, should you notice that, the intact structure did not yield until the collapse front reached them. Looking at the structure as a set of individual components however, that's a different matter, and were your assertion that it is little more than an opinion holds little merit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed this:

The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.

Bazant admits that he has a one dimensional model that is not consistent with the actual collapse.

Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

He has a theory about how they might have collapsed - if all his assumptions are correct.
 
Christopher7 said:
He has a theory about how they might have collapsed - if all his assumptions are correct.
Click to expand...

And your competing theory is that the buildings were brought down by CD, can I assume? Got it. The problem is that all YOUR assumptions need to be correct for that to have happened, and you have ZERO evidence to support any of it.

So. Let's go there then. Let's say he only has a theory about how they might have collapsed. It appears that you only have a theory about how they might have collapsed. Which one fits the available evidence the best? Which one has the support of more experts?

Oh. Wait. Do you even have a theory? Have you submitted any papers describing your theory to a respected peer-reviewed journal for scrutiny by other experts?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom