It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by -PLB-
As for your irrelevant "physics test question", its cute, but not really interesting. It just show you miss the point
Originally posted by -PLB-
So where did the argument that there is no horizontal force when the trusses are stiff change exactly? Yep, nowhere. The argument still stands and didn't change.
Anyway, I think your are in fact trolling, measured by the amount of smilies you use. But as long as we are both amused I guess there is no harm
Originally posted by -PLB-
Maybe if you ask a serious question that is actually relevant I will bother. I don't care what you think of my physics skills.
Originally posted by -PLB-
If you call pointing out major flaws in your physics "running away", then sure, we can agree.
Major flaw in your "physics": Horizontal force with a stiff truss.
Major flaw in ANOKs "physics": Ignoring mass of already collapsed floors.
You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.
I guess I have to make a youtube for you people to understand.
You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.
Originally posted by -PLB-
You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.
Originally posted by -PLB-
The drawing by Nutter is correct, no matter if he says its not. Your drawing is just wrong, you fail.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I think instead of whatever you told ANOK you were, you're just from 4chan or something.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Malcram
What physics are you talking about? I haven't seen any physics as of yet, just someone claiming the physics are simple and make it impossible. Should I really accept anyones word for it? No, I require to see it. I am not a gullible layman like you, I am an engineer myself. I don't need totally dumbed down Youtube videos in order to "understand" something. Those kind of explanations hardly give any insight at all. I required a scientific study that includes the physics. Granted, I may not understand it all, but at least the person making the claims shows he has an understanding of the subject himself, making his word a bit more credible. Or he shows he doesn't have a clue of course.
I am an electrical engineer. I lack in knowledge about most of the physics that have to do with structural engineering. That doesn't mean I don't understand it when I read it per se, I just don't know it that well. Without study I won't be able to produce a basic model that describes a building collapse. I am not trained to do that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by bsbray11I think instead of whatever you told ANOK you were, you're just from 4chan or something. You're really not even trying anymore, and it's sad. The FBD Nutter posted showed trusses resting directly on top of the perimeter columns, which was not how the trusses were actually attached, thus the difference. He acknowledged this.
Originally posted by -PLB-
And so you drew a 100% horizontal force
Again, the effect of the connection being slightly outside the center of gravity has no bearing on the effect caused by sagging trusses, and can thus be left out in the model. Which part of this do you not understand or disagree with, and why?
Originally posted by bsbray11
I was modeling the forces you believe pulled the perimeter columns inward, not gravity loads that are completely irrelevant to this whole conversation. If you think including them will change the outcome of what I showed then again -- do your own FBD. But you don't know how. So you're commenting from the peanut gallery.
I don't know whether you can't do a FBD because you never had physics and you're lying about being an engineer, or if it's because you honestly realize you have no flipping clue what you're talking about, maybe you just never listened in class or demonstrated a memory there just as horrible as you do here when you can't even remember what I just posted, but it's definitely not because you don't have enough time, when you waste so much time on this forum.
I never said a damned word about the center of gravity here, so you must have learned this from reading my posts. (Yeah right, because you can't remember what I post by your next response!)
Originally posted by -PLB-
How many times have I said that there is no horizontal component to the force in the situation where the trusses do no sag?
Why do you claim that I believe there is?
And it is the gravity load that causes the inward bowing. Which other force could be responsible?
Indeed, you don't know. The ones by Nutter are correct, there is no point in drawing it again.
I thought it was you who wanted the model the eccentric load on the columns? I indeed did some reading on that subject as result of you bringing it up. It is not like I know all this stuff from my head. My reading let me to the conclusion that it is not relevant to model this effect. I may be totally wrong, of course, although I think I have good arguments: The involved forces are negligible (as proven by the fact the building stood for 30 years without bowing columns). And the involved forces have no significant bearing on the effect of sagging trusses
Originally posted by bsbray11Maybe in your native country they don't teach you that all FBD's are reflecting an instantaneous moment in time and in physics this is well understood. I was already modeling that instant when you think a horizontal force begins to exist in the FBD, and obviously not before it would have existed. So what is really wrong with the FBD? Nothing, and you have no clue what you are saying. The excuses are only getting worse and worse.
You're putting words in my mouth and/or lying. To even think I was making a point to model the trusses before anything happened to them is stupid. But you invent the story, and then ask me why. Again, I'm not a therapist. I can't tell you why you are having these experiences.
And why are there additional columns bowing inward again in the first place, aside from what the impacts did? Oh yeah, according to NIST it's because the trusses were exerting some kind of horizontal PULLING FORCE on the columns. Does that answer your question, or are you still confused?
Nutter agrees with me himself. You have been repeatedly shown by several different examples between ANOK, myself, and Nutter to have no idea what you are talking about.
Unless you can clarify which columns and what "eccentric load" you are referring to, I'm not even sure what you're talking about modeling. The only thing I can think of is that you're thinking of the global collapse modeling or analysis that NIST never did, but that seems to be hardly what you're talking about.