'What about building 7'?

[Belz...]

First let me identify your persistent foundation errors:
1) your reasoning continues to follow the error you made back with "Missing Jolt" - the error of taking the B&Z assumption of a falling upper member landing on a static lower tower - and relying on that assumption as if it actually happen. It didn't happen that way. And what did happen did not leave the scenario for "Missing Jolts" or your other claims based on that same erroneous foundation;
2) you reasoning shows no recognition of the reality of:
(a) The initiation stage for WTC1 and WTC2 collapses was a "cascading" failure; AND
(b) Your explanations treat the process as block on block - not as the cascading failure which actually occurred which was an interaction of multiple individual members connected in a framework.

You'd think by now one of those truthers would've gotten an actual degree in engineering or something.

 

[ozeco41]

It amazes me that an engineer cannot understand that load safety factors ASSUME that the structural SYSTEM is intact...

True - and that is only one aspect. Recall my comment was "He is simply wrong - and in multiple ways."

ONE of those multiple ways where he is wrong is applying the FOS globally - whether by explicit statement or by implication. At any stage of the cascading collapse - and stated simply - the ONLY member for which the alleged FOS has to be overwhelmed is the current weakest member which is destined to be the next to fail in the cascade sequence. And there are several other aspects of his errors which flow off that one.

Likewise on the issue of heating the ONLY member which needs to be heated is that same one destined to be the next member to fail in the cascade. And it only needs heating enough to ensure that - in combination with the existing load AND any overload from load redistribution AND any worsened Euler buckling risks due to removal of braces - the heating is to a temperature where that member fails under the combination of those key factors - unbraced length, load and temperature.

Sure the time delays - and temperature dispersion - in the heating will ensure that a lot more members get to be heated. That is reality anyway. BUT the usual truther implied "all columns must be heated" is.....faeces of the male bovine.

Its the three legged stool thing again, take out one leg and it still functions for loads 2/3rds that of the design, right? Lol.

Four legged chair with solid leg spreaders. Heck the spreaders don't support any weight, take them out at no risk to loading maximums, right?

I'll take those as rhetorical questions.

 

[Agatha]

This thread has become quite long so a continuation thread has been opened HERE. As usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are welcome to quote from this thread into the new thread.

Posted By: Agatha