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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 75
420
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And this results in sagging in the middle when the two ends of the beam/truss are restrained.


It might. At what temp/expansion has your research shown that they should start sagging in the towers?

Truthers and NIST both have done this work, and agree that in the early stages, the ext columns would be displaced out, as you say. No sagging. But as they get heated further, they show sag and pull in through catenary forces. Just as you've been told.



And once again, for the steel to become like a big wet floppy noodle, it would have to reach temperatures that weren't shown or even suggested anywhere in the NIST report.


How hot would they need to get in order to sag?

How much creep have you factored into your research/analysis ?




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
And this results in sagging in the middle when the two ends of the beam/truss are restrained.


It might. At what temp/expansion has your research shown that they should start sagging in the towers?


Look up the Cardington tests and study them. They lay it all out there. NIST heated the trusses to 700 C (the steel itself was 700 C, the fire was hotter, a megawatt burner), and started to get sagging, but did not reach any wet noodle stage and the attached perimeter columns were unmoved. This totally debunked their hypothesis, so they just said it was a computer calibration instead and went on to a number of different computer simulations. But they had everything they'd need to prove their hypothesis physically. They set up the truss, they set up a section of perimeter columns, and they simulated the trusses being restrained on the other ends too. And they applied a large, controlled amount of heat to the truss for a period of time until it reached around 700 C. And what they claim happened in the towers, didn't happen.


If you really want to see a real, quality scientific study, like I said, study the

Cardington tests



Steel decking glowing red hot:


edit on 1-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Wow, let me get this straight: do you finally acknowledge there can be a inward pull force when the trusses are hot enough? So you realize that all your ramblings about the way they were connected and what not making inward pull forces impossible was nonsense? And your argument now has become that yes there can be a inward pull force but not at the temperatures in the WTC? If this is the case, it is interesting to see how far people will go with lying just to in an attempt to save their ego, acknowledging you are wrong to someone so "bad" as physics can be a pain. If this is not the case, why are you arguing that temperatures were not high enough?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Wow, let me get this straight: do you finally acknowledge there can be a inward pull force when the trusses are hot enough?


Not hardly. I don't suppose you looked at the Cardington test I just linked to. There was not a single "pull force" anywhere to be seen. You are talking about borderline melting the steel, and a phenomenon that has never been observed in any study, ever. So you are talking about a mechanism that has no scientific validity to it, and that has nothing to do with the WTC.

Once again, I ask you to post whatever science you think there is to the WTC trusses becoming equivalent to catenaries. You've said more than once that such science exists but you must be confused as to what you're thinking of. Even NIST's own test debunked their hypothesis.


And your argument now has become that yes there can be a inward pull force but not at the temperatures in the WTC? If this is the case, it is interesting to see how far people will go with lying just to in an attempt to save their ego, acknowledging you are wrong to someone so "bad" as physics can be a pain. If this is not the case, why are you arguing that temperatures were not high enough?


I am arguing that what you say happened at the WTC did not and could not have happened, on top of there being no evidence for it in the first place, and the mechanism does not make any sense. That has not changed. Look at the link I posted above. Those are expansion forces. Those are not wet noodle forces, and the truss does not act as a catenary. You are making all of that up, based on nothing.

NIST also did the experiment to physically show what would happen. Nothing happened, except some sagging.

So are you going to show me examples of beams or trusses pulling in columns because they're hot, or are you going to try to keep the petty bickering going? I can't even remember now how many times I've asked you to post the science you claim proves what you're saying. Apparently it contradicts the Cardington studies, whatever your mystery source is.
edit on 1-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not hardly. I don't suppose you looked at the Cardington test I just linked to. There was not a single "pull force" anywhere to be seen. You are talking about borderline melting the steel, and a phenomenon that has never been observed in any study, ever. So you are talking about a mechanism that has no scientific validity to it, and that has nothing to do with the WTC.

Once again, I ask you to post whatever science you think there is to the WTC trusses becoming equivalent to catenaries. You've said more than once that such science exists but you must be confused as to what you're thinking of. Even NIST's own test debunked their hypothesis.


Ok I was already kind of surprised. I already pointed you to a list of links of publication in the very beginning we started to talk about this subject. You simply ignored that, and additionally you didn't do your own (re)search, you didn't do anything in fact. Just to see your response, take for example a look at this. Look at page 7, it shows actual experimental data.

How on earth could you have missed this when you are genually interested in this subject? Not only did I point you to it, it is so extremely easy to find yourself. Or are you still clinging to the "connections make inward pull impossible" nonsense?





I am arguing that what you say happened at the WTC did not and could not have happened, on top of there being no evidence for it in the first place, and the mechanism does not make any sense. That has not changed. Look at the link I posted above. Those are expansion forces. Those are not wet noodle forces, and the truss does not act as a catenary. You are making all of that up, based on nothing.


Based on both physics and actual experimental data you mean. Both of which you ignore.


NIST also did the experiment to physically show what would happen. Nothing happened, except some sagging.

So are you going to show me examples of beams or trusses pulling in columns because they're hot, or are you going to try to keep the petty bickering going? I can't even remember now how many times I've asked you to post the science you claim proves what you're saying. Apparently it contradicts the Cardington studies, whatever your mystery source is.
edit on 1-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


So you ignoring my links to experimental data has now turned into me not posting them at all while you were asking for it? It is funny to see how the lies develop.
edit on 1-4-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


not terrorist, but are own goverments. false flag operation
well the "US goverment." that is if you are not from the usa
edit on 1-4-2011 by straightkilll because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Ok I was already kind of surprised. I already pointed you to a list of links of publication in the very beginning we started to talk about this subject. You simply ignored that


I'm not stupid. If you're dumping a load of links on me then chances are, you haven't read them either, and by your total lack of being able to explain what in the hell you've been talking about this whole time, I think that kind of proves the fact that you didn't even read them.

If you want to post excerpts from any of those publications that are relevant, that's all on you. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase looking for evidence through a list of links, when you apparently don't even know what they say, and the whole original point was for you to back your own damned self up. Not to make me do all the work for you.



This is actually a good start:


Originally posted by -PLB-
You simply ignored that, and additionally you didn't do your own (re)search, you didn't do anything in fact. Just to see your response, take for example a look at this. Look at page 7, it shows actual experimental data.



Your own source shows that the "axial reaction force" on the positive end (which required heating the steel to around 850 C, which NIST could show no evidence for), is less than what it was on the negative end. Going by that, shouldn't the towers have collapsed from buckling caused by the columns being pushed outwards with greater force at even lower temperatures?

That makes it that much more odd that we didn't see any columns being pushed outwards too, doesn't it?


Also, did you look at the Cardington tests above?
edit on 1-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The graph shows force not displacement. Outward displacement is limited by the trusses as they can't keep on expanding, inward displacement is not limited as the trusses can, theoretically, continue to sag.

So, you finally acknowledge there can be a inward pull force? That would be a breakthrough. It almost looks like it, but it seems you just can't directly do so as you think it makes you look like a fool. Although your absurd position you keep clinching to that it is not possible at all makes you look way more like a fool in my opinion.

And yes, I took a quick look at those tests you posted. Is there any in particular point you want to make with it? Something like "look at test x, that proves y"?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The graph shows force not displacement.


The amount of displacement is obviously directly related to the force being applied. That's why I've been talking mainly about force, this whole time.


Outward displacement is limited by the trusses as they can't keep on expanding, inward displacement is not limited as the trusses can, theoretically, continue to sag.


The expansion still represents a greater force at an even lower temperature, according to your own graph.

The sagging requires temperatures that were well over 100 C greater than anything NIST had evidence of the fires doing, and even then, represent a lesser force than the expansion would have.


So, you finally acknowledge there can be a inward pull force? That would be a breakthrough.


No, it would be a breakthrough if it made sense with the actual science you are posting. We already discussed way earlier in this thread that the trusses were not sitting directly on top of the columns and that for this reason they automatically represent a "pull force" on the perimeter columns from being attached to the sides, which they were designed for (thus the spandrel plates, dampers, etc.) and thus insignificant as far as trying to deflect the perimeter columns. You are trying to show why there would be an additional "pull force" on these columns, no? The trusses are not going to become wet noodles until temperatures that there are no evidence for. The graph you just posted proved that greater forces are experienced by the expansion, at even lower temperatures, than by any sagging. And once again I ask you -- how many columns were buckled pushed outwards at the WTC?

If I were to acknowledge that there could have been a significant "pulling" force from sagging trusses, I would also have to acknowledge that there could have been trusses melted by the fire. Why don't I do this? Because there is no evidence of it, and it also doesn't make sense.


It almost looks like it, but it seems you just can't directly do so as you think it makes you look like a fool.


Let's talk about looking like a fool. Your own graph that you just posted shows that the expansion forces are greater than when the truss is heated to 850 C. There is no evidence that trusses were heated to 850 C, especially since that's about what the temperatures of the fires themselves would have been at most, barring a brief flashover. There is no evidence that columns were even buckling outwards from the greater force at the slightly lower temperature, which they should have been according to your graph. And you say I'm being stubborn because I don't want to look like a fool?


Although your absurd position you keep clinching to that it is not possible at all makes you look way more like a fool in my opinion.


And you are saying it's impossible for the columns to be pushed outwards by an even greater force, at an even lower temperature?


And yes, I took a quick look at those tests you posted. Is there any in particular point you want to make with it? Something like "look at test x, that proves y"?


Or you could just read the conclusion of the study they released based on their tests. I'll post it for you if you want.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The amount of displacement is obviously directly related to the force being applied. That's why I've been talking mainly about force, this whole time.


And this is obviously wrong. Yet another physical concept you are unable to grasp, sigh. Outward bowing is limited by the amount of expansions of the trusses. Inward bowing is not limited by anything.


The expansion still represents a greater force at an even lower temperature, according to your own graph.


Yes. Point being?


No, it would be a breakthrough if it made sense with the actual science you are posting. We already discussed way earlier in this thread that the trusses were not sitting directly on top of the columns and that for this reason they automatically represent a "pull force" on the perimeter columns from being attached to the sides, which they were designed for (thus the spandrel plates, dampers, etc.) and thus insignificant as far as trying to deflect the perimeter columns.


And I already pointed out that eccentric loading results in an angular force, not a pull force. And yes, the columns were designed to withstand that force, so it is not a likely candidate for the observed bowing of the columns.


You are trying to show why there would be an additional "pull force" on these columns, no? The trusses are not going to become wet noodles until temperatures that there are no evidence for. The graph you just posted proved that greater forces are experienced by the expansion, at even lower temperatures, than by any sagging. And once again I ask you -- how many columns were buckled pushed outwards at the WTC?


So you acknowledge the mechanism is possible?


If I were to acknowledge that there could have been a significant "pulling" force from sagging trusses, I would also have to acknowledge that there could have been trusses melted by the fire. Why don't I do this? Because there is no evidence of it, and it also doesn't make sense.


This makes no sense. 750 degrees != 1500 degrees. 750 degrees isn't that odd for office fires. Besides, the test I posted was not for the WTC, it was just an example to show concept was tested and confirmed with experimental data.


Let's talk about looking like a fool. Your own graph that you just posted shows that the expansion forces are greater than when the truss is heated to 850 C. There is no evidence that trusses were heated to 850 C, especially since that's about what the temperatures of the fires themselves would have been at most, barring a brief flashover. There is no evidence that columns were even buckling outwards from the greater force at the slightly lower temperature, which they should have been according to your graph. And you say I'm being stubborn because I don't want to look like a fool?


You are being a fool because you have been denying there could be a horizontal pull force at all. I can't tell if this force was actually there, and if it was there if it was strong enough. I just pointed out that it could have been the cause for the observed bowing of the columns. And a good one at it.


And you are saying it's impossible for the columns to be pushed outwards by an even greater force, at an even lower temperature?


Nope, keep you delusion in check, you are imagining thing I never said again.


Or you could just read the conclusion of the study they released based on their tests. I'll post it for you if you want.


Sure, I wouldn't want you to have double standards, mister I don't want to follow your links and you should spell it all out for me.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
And this is obviously wrong. Yet another physical concept you are unable to grasp, sigh. Outward bowing is limited by the amount of expansions of the trusses. Inward bowing is not limited by anything.


Yes, it's actually limited by temperature there Einstein. Temperatures that you don't have.



The expansion still represents a greater force at an even lower temperature, according to your own graph.


Yes. Point being?


Well let's see. The expansion force is larger than any "pull" force, and occurs at even lower temperatures, and yet you don't see any columns bowing outward at the WTC. I'm not going to spell it out for you. If you're as smart as you pretend to be, you wouldn't need it spelled out.

Something else happens at those temperatures: steel begins glowing red, increasingly orange, in broad daylight, and is easy to see.


And I already pointed out that eccentric loading results in an angular force, not a pull force.


An angular force has a horizontal component. Once again we go back to you not understanding vector math or free body diagrams.


So you acknowledge the mechanism is possible?


Just as possible as the fires melting the trusses.


This makes no sense. 750 degrees != 1500 degrees. 750 degrees isn't that odd for office fires.


Exactly. It isn't odd for fire. Let me guess, you think the steel is going to be the exact same temperature as the fire. No surprises there. Maybe you would do good to look up what "entropy" means, or learn a little bit about convection or thermodynamics in general.


You are being a fool because you have been denying there could be a horizontal pull force at all.


And yet I am telling you that the truss setup would have naturally produced a horizontal force on its own? I am telling you that the force you are describing is negligible, and the mechanism you are describing for failure is completely unfounded.



And you are saying it's impossible for the columns to be pushed outwards by an even greater force, at an even lower temperature?


Nope, keep you delusion in check, you are imagining thing I never said again.


Then where is the outward bowing?

It should have been more widespread and more visible than inward bowing, because (a) the force for it is greater, and (b) it happens at even lower temperatures.


Sure, I wouldn't want you to have double standards, mister I don't want to follow your links and you should spell it all out for me.



Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115]

The behaviour of the structure and the floor members showed that a steel frame designed to BS 5950 Part 8 is structurally safe when exposed to a severe fire. The study [115] carried out after the Broadgate fire showed that when fire affects only part of a structure (compartmentation) and when the framework acts as a total entity structural stability is improved.


And it goes on.

guardian.150m.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You are being a fool because you have been denying there could be a horizontal pull force at all. I can't tell if this force was actually there, and if it was there if it was strong enough. I just pointed out that it could have been the cause for the observed bowing of the columns. And a good one at it.


This is hilarious, you are basing your point on nothing but assumptions that have more logical alternative explanations.

The bowing that NIST claims was columns could just as easily be the outer aluminum cladding warped from the planes impacts and the fire, and the columns were not moving at all...

Look really close...





There is a gap between the steel and aluminum, there has to be to avoid galvanic corrosion.

I doubt you will even consider this more logical explanation.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your alternative explanation is noted. I have to congratulate you for finally actually come with one. But your manners are still of such a shameful degree that I don't really care to have a conversation with you.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, it's actually limited by temperature there Einstein. Temperatures that you don't have.


But luckily you placed temperature sensors in the buildings that exactly measured the temperature of the trusses. Now I only need to wait until you publish that data.


Well let's see. The expansion force is larger than any "pull" force, and occurs at even lower temperatures, and yet you don't see any columns bowing outward at the WTC. I'm not going to spell it out for you. If you're as smart as you pretend to be, you wouldn't need it spelled out.


Come on spell it out. Make me laugh.


Something else happens at those temperatures: steel begins glowing red, increasingly orange, in broad daylight, and is easy to see.


At 750 degrees its not that bright. Anyway, Cole is actually arguing that the columns were glowing. Do you disagree with Cole?


An angular force has a horizontal component. Once again we go back to you not understanding vector math or free body diagrams.


So any horizontal component is now a pull force. Sure, whatever you want.


Exactly. It isn't odd for fire. Let me guess, you think the steel is going to be the exact same temperature as the fire. No surprises there. Maybe you would do good to look up what "entropy" means, or learn a little bit about convection or thermodynamics in general.


Bottom line is that I do not know what temperatures the trusses reached. Unlike you who seem to have some secret data you are about to publish. Go make a convincing argument.


And yet I am telling you that the truss setup would have naturally produced a horizontal force on its own? I am telling you that the force you are describing is negligible, and the mechanism you are describing for failure is completely unfounded.


No, you were claiming that this force wasn't possible at all. Keep the lie going. You only change your position now because your realized were wrong.


Then where is the outward bowing?


Pfffff, once again, outward bowing is limited by the amount of expansion of the trusses and can be completely unobservable when the trusses start to sag soon enough. But maybe it was observable, I don't know.


It should have been more widespread and more visible than inward bowing, because (a) the force for it is greater, and (b) it happens at even lower temperatures.


No it should not. Force != displacement. Is that really so hard to grasp?


Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115]

The behaviour of the structure and the floor members showed that a steel frame designed to BS 5950 Part 8 is structurally safe when exposed to a severe fire. The study [115] carried out after the Broadgate fire showed that when fire affects only part of a structure (compartmentation) and when the framework acts as a total entity structural stability is improved.

And it goes on.

guardian.150m.com...


Ok, now try to make a coherent point. Or do you want me to guess?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your alternative explanation is noted. I have to congratulate you for finally actually come with one.


What are you congratulating exactly? Mental masturbation?

We can come up with all the theories we want. NIST already came up with a theory. The whole problem is that there is no evidence to support it. This isn't an issue that's going to be settled on internet forums.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, it's actually limited by temperature there Einstein. Temperatures that you don't have.


But luckily you placed temperature sensors in the buildings that exactly measured the temperature of the trusses. Now I only need to wait until you publish that data.


Since you're being sarcastic and there obviously weren't any temperature sensors in the building (although there is a video appearing to show heat data using an external heat sensing camera), does that mean you think the fire was hot enough to melt the steel too?

Of course you don't, because it's not realistic in the least. Not only is your scenario unrealistic also, but observations (or a lack thereof) contradict your scenario. There is no outward buckling visible, etc. You know all of this already and are just being the stubborn fool you accuse me of being.



Well let's see. The expansion force is larger than any "pull" force, and occurs at even lower temperatures, and yet you don't see any columns bowing outward at the WTC. I'm not going to spell it out for you. If you're as smart as you pretend to be, you wouldn't need it spelled out.


Come on spell it out. Make me laugh.


Uh, okay.


The bigger force is going to produce more displacement than a smaller force.

There, that's hilarious isn't it? You think a smaller force produces more critical displacement. Now that is funny.



Something else happens at those temperatures: steel begins glowing red, increasingly orange, in broad daylight, and is easy to see.


At 750 degrees its not that bright.


Brighter than dark gray.


The steel actually emits photons too to generate these colors, it is not a reflection, so you would be able to see it through the dark.


Anyway, Cole is actually arguing that the columns were glowing. Do you disagree with Cole?


I'd have to see his argument and why he believes this is the case. Maybe unlike yourself I actually evaluate all claims on the basis of the claims themselves and regardless of who is making them. You are apparently demonstrating projection in assuming that I choose what to believe based on who else believes what. You can keep that kind of "thinking" for yourself, truster.



An angular force has a horizontal component. Once again we go back to you not understanding vector math or free body diagrams.


So any horizontal component is now a pull force. Sure, whatever you want.


Yeah, that's kind of the whole point. I realize this is hard for someone who doesn't know what a vector is. But you're not even trying.



Exactly. It isn't odd for fire. Let me guess, you think the steel is going to be the exact same temperature as the fire. No surprises there. Maybe you would do good to look up what "entropy" means, or learn a little bit about convection or thermodynamics in general.


Bottom line is that I do not know what temperatures the trusses reached. Unlike you who seem to have some secret data you are about to publish. Go make a convincing argument.


Look at the Cardington tests again. I don't need "secret data." You just admitted yourself 750 C is typical for these kinds of fires. That's right. Well it doesn't take a freaking genius to tell you that, according to laws of thermodynamics, the steel itself will NEVER reach the same temperature as the fire due to entropy, convection, etc. And no, it isn't going to be a hundred degrees hotter than the fire, either.




And yet I am telling you that the truss setup would have naturally produced a horizontal force on its own? I am telling you that the force you are describing is negligible, and the mechanism you are describing for failure is completely unfounded.


No, you were claiming that this force wasn't possible at all. Keep the lie going.


I claimed the force wasn't possible at all, while telling you that the truss/perimeter setup was designed for horizontal forces that were inherent to the design itself? I told you that the mechanism you are describing is impossible, because it is, and the trusses were not acting as catenaries. There is no data to support it, and there is data to contradict it (simple observations).




Then where is the outward bowing?


Pfffff, once again, outward bowing is limited by the amount of expansion of the trusses and can be completely unobservable when the trusses start to sag soon enough. But maybe it was observable, I don't know.


Listen man. I know you are not really this stupid. Yes, the amount of bowing is limited, in either direction, by laws of physics. Before it even reaches its limit in the expanding direction, IT STILL PRODUCES MORE "PUSHING" FORCE THAN SAGGING EVER GENERATES A "PULLING" FORCE.

And these forces are both insignificant to the structure itself.

That's WHY you don't see bowing outwards from a GREATER FORCE AT A LOWER TEMPERATURE.

You never could explain what those spandrel plates were for, or the dampers, and you just ignored those repeated questions, but I'll tell you myself. They were to keep the perimeter columns in line with each other, and to PREVENT them from being pushed or pulled out of place by ANY force. I know you'll inevitably disagree with me just like you disagree with the most basic freaking common sense. But if you really sat and thought (like a logical person) for 2 seconds what the spandrel plates would do for any effort to push the columns inward or outward... No, that doesn't do anything for you. I know. But where are the spandrel plates considered by NIST in regards to this pushing or pulling? NOWHERE. They don't even try to quantify what forces they are talking about "pulling" on the columns like real engineers would, because their report is a JOKE, and the only people that fall for it are uneducated laymen who have never had to write a technical paper.



It should have been more widespread and more visible than inward bowing, because (a) the force for it is greater, and (b) it happens at even lower temperatures.


No it should not. Force != displacement. Is that really so hard to grasp?


That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Why do you think a lesser force creates a larger displacement than a greater force? Did somebody screw with you as a kid and tell you that 0 was the biggest number and all other numbers are smaller or something?



Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115]

The behaviour of the structure and the floor members showed that a steel frame designed to BS 5950 Part 8 is structurally safe when exposed to a severe fire. The study [115] carried out after the Broadgate fire showed that when fire affects only part of a structure (compartmentation) and when the framework acts as a total entity structural stability is improved.

And it goes on.

guardian.150m.com...


Ok, now try to make a coherent point. Or do you want me to guess?



I really don't think it would make a difference whether I tried to explain it to you or not, because you gave up thinking pages and pages ago. I'm convinced you're just on auto-pilot now and don't even give a damn what you post anymore.

I will make parts bold for you, how about that?


The behaviour of the structure and the floor members showed that a steel frame designed to BS 5950 Part 8 is structurally safe when exposed to a severe fire. The study [115] carried out after the Broadgate fire showed that when fire affects only part of a structure (compartmentation) and when the framework acts as a total entity structural stability is improved.


Anything yet?

Deflections, deformations, etc. are localized failures. They do not translate to global events, because the intact parts of the structure compensate in a steel-framed building. This is what the Cardington tests showed, and this was their conclusion. You are free and welcome to pour over all the data yourself, though that would be equally useless, I'm sure.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your alternative explanation is noted.


LOL you're taking notes huh, how is that working for you? When will you be honest and actually look at the evidence and the logical explanation for that evidence without being influenced and biased by someone elses claims? This just shows me you are not knowledgeable enough to think this through yourself, or you are outright lying about everything you claim. We know you lie, you've already proved that 'Mr. Electrical Engineer'.


I have to congratulate you for finally actually come with one. But your manners are still of such a shameful degree that I don't really care to have a conversation with you.


LOL my manners? From someone who started this discussion with outright lies as to who they are? Why should I be polite with you? You should think yourself lucky anyone is even bothering to respond to you.

Are you actually going to continue to discus your claims, or is this just your cop out because you have nothing left?

Where is the evidence that the bowing was not the aluminum cladding? You are supporting a claim you can not even supply evidence for. You know this.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL you're taking notes huh, how is that working for you? When will you be honest and actually look at the evidence and the logical explanation for that evidence without being influenced and biased by someone elses claims? This just shows me you are not knowledgeable enough to think this through yourself, or you are
outright lying about everything you claim. We know you lie, you've already proved that 'Mr. Electrical Engineer'.


Slander. Show me a single lie I made.



LOL my manners? From someone who started this discussion with outright lies as to who they are? Why should I be polite with you? You should think yourself lucky anyone is even bothering to respond to you.


This is what is wrong with your manners. Calling someone a liar without anything to back it up is extremely rude.


Are you actually going to continue to discus your claims, or is this just your cop out because you have nothing left?


If you can do it in a civilized manner, sure, which claim I made do you wish to discuss?


Where is the evidence that the bowing was not the aluminum cladding? You are supporting a claim you can not even supply evidence for. You know this.


Where did I ever made that claim? The delusion is strong in you.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


1) I do not find it unrealistic that the trusses reached a temperature that caused them to sag. If you do, support your position with evidence or physics. Actual data or actual calculations, not your layman guesstimates. If you do not have any of these, your argument is basically void.

2) Show me the data that contradicts the idea that the trusses could act like a catenary (maybe you should have done this from the start instead of bringing up pointless argument after pointless argument?)

3) The spandrel plates or dampers have no effect on the forces as result of the catenary action. Why? Because they are not related or depend. If you disagree, show why they are.

4) I can exercise an enormous force on an object for a very short time, displacing it just a millimeter. I can also exercise a small force on that same object for a very long time, displacing it 1000km. Do you get the drift? You cannot derive displacement by only knowing the force without knowing the duration. Its not that hard to figure out you know.

5) So let me guess your argument: The steel structure in the test setup did not collapse because of fire, therefor no steel building in the entire world can ever collapse because of fire, even when a plane crashes into it. Did I get your fallacy eeeh argument correct? If not, make your point.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Double post.

Cable internet connection + the West Virginia border = very painful online experience. Damn you SuddenLink!
edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join