Originally posted by Seymour Butz
For example, start with a set of numbers for your elusive structural docs that seem realistic, and if it shows near free fall speed, then that's your
I'm not even going to argue about this with you, because to pretend that you are qualified enough to know what numbers are realistic is a joke.
Analyzing a collapsing building requires dynamic analysis above and beyond even what structural engineers are required to know, and you sure as hell
don't know anything about it.
You can keep your amateur psychology to yourself, too. I don't need to take pity on how you try to reconcile yourself with what I say.
Bottom line, come back and post your links again when you (a) understand them, and (b) can justify them with something other than an opinion or an
end trying to justify the means. To get to step 'b', you probably should get to step 'a' first. I'm not going to argue with a parrot.
Btw, I mentioned analyzing collapsing buildings. Keep in mind that, until 9/11, this kind of analysis never had to be attempted and the actual
science behind it is still sketchy. One of the members of the FEMA BPAT team (Astaneh-Asl) was doing lab work testing the effects of impact-loading
on steel structures in only August 2001. Before that, the only half-related study that anyone has dug up so far comes from 1984 paper by Calladine
and English, and from what I understand, what they studied could not easily be directly related to the failure mechanisms attributed to the Twin
Towers, and presumably WTC7 (if NIST or any other agency would ever get around to even presenting
a working theory on that building -- it
amazes me how blind you are). All previous "failures" in steel structures were limited to sagging, deflections, buckling, and things of that
a dynamic system, where the steel is actively shearing off and falling and then shearing more steel off. This has never been
observed in a lab or anywhere else except supposedly on 9/11, and even NIST admits what theories they have in those regards are just that --
theories. "Hypothesis" is the actual term they use. (They never verified them in the lab, either, and for Christ's sake POST THE DAMNED TEST
RESULTS if you are still in denial about this FACT.) You can try to contradict me on this but I seriously doubt you would know what you are talking
about and you're only going to show me
how sad you are, unless you can actually find relevant information that I'm missing (please do, use
Google or whatever you can). Just go dig up information on steel impact-loading behaviors and prove me wrong if you want to run your mouth like I
know you will. Thinking of some clever way to insult me is not impressive, it's what every adolescent with an internet connection does.
[edit on 23-6-2008 by bsbray11]