DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What part?
- Status
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
He was the owner of a company that among other things, performed demolitions.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1
Animal
Master Poster
And your lack of knowledge as to the extent of my knowledge makes that meaningless.
You have made it quite obvious as to your lack of understanding.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Wait, what do you think NIST was trying to simulate? Was it how the building collapse COULD HAVE occurred given heat from a fire, or whether it COULD occur at all?
If it was how it COULD HAVE occurred, is the purpose of a simulation to have absolute fidelity (to an unknowable interior as is state), or point to a likely path using well defined assumptions?
All you had to say is that you do or don't know where or what the beam stubs are, or what their function is. I didn't notice that NIST had left them out, and had to have it pointed out to me.
I don't see the word "expanded" there. I only see the term "travel distance for walk off", which alludes to the relative displacement between the beam and the seat.
Are you aware of the difference between "travel distance for walk off" and "expansion"?
That's not being silly. Being silly is imagining that in such a jeopardized building the conditions remained as designed.
"The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79 to the east."
Using your style of referencing:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225
Yet you don't seem to distinguish them.
I did. NIST are saying that the distance for walk off was 6.25", but they are NOT saying that the beam had to expand as much. That's entirely your claim, not NIST's.
You can't be serious. Are you now claiming that the girder was restrained by the column plates? Why was walk-off, axial or lateral, into consideration in any way then?
And it's not "my theory". See above.
That analysis lacks any rigour. You need to show that the beam(s) (which?) fell, in the first place, and even if so, that it was impossible for them to be restrained by the connection from displacing
Last edited:
MileHighMadness
Muse
Again, gerrycan, what is your background and education?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why?
"And, of course, the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures." Shyam Sunder Aug 26th 2008, NIST technical briefing.
Yep, but they don't claim the beam expanded that much. You made that up.
Reread what I said about leveraging.
None of your business.
The claim that is made by NIST is that the girder walked 6.25". What pushed it?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What pushed what?
"In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) " http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why only the girder?
What you don't seem to understand is that a beam can expand say 5" and cause the total accumulated displacement between seat and girder to exceed 6.25", counting east displacement of the column (which is a very plausible possibility as NIST pointed out, and as I quoted in the part of my message that you ignored), leveraging and other factors.
You keep ignoring that possibility and putting words on NIST's mouth that they never said.
ETA:
Same mistake again.
Last edited:
BS, the column is tied and nobody claims any different, apart from you.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Was it not involved in the fire?
- Status