The trade centers were detonated by Halliburton After the CIA Crashed remote control airforce cargo drones into them...thats official

Originally posted by ANOK

It depends? You do realise that the concrete and steel pans also took the load right? The trusses took the load of the whole floor assembly, concrete, steel pans, office contents etc. So unless the concrete and steel floor pans also sagged then the load would not cause the truss to sag.

But what was the concrete and steel pan? The trusses. The weight of the decking and concrete is what the loading was on the trusses. They werent solid pieces either ANOK. They were in segments as well. Also the steel is now more pliable due to the temp.

And your point is? Time, less than one hour. Heat, not enough to cause steel to fail in less than one hour. So little heat people could stand in the very spot you claim the trusses sagged.

Uh ANOK, trusses heat up VERY quickly when exposed to high temperatures. Dont you remember that? How long did it take for the large heavy trusses that supported the roof of McCormick Place in Chicago to fail in 1967? 27 minutes ANOK. 27 minutes for very large and heavy trusses to fail, from fire alone. What was burning? Just displays and typical stuff you'd find in a home, office, or what have you. The WTC's trusses were far smaller, and also some had been damaged or destroyed by the impacts, and they had crappy fireproofing. How is it ANOK, in your infinite wisdom, that large heavy steel trusses holding up a roof managed to collapse within a half hour, which only had to deal with winter snow loading, but the WTC floor trusses shouldnt have been able to fail in such amount of time? And dont give me this crap that "so little heat" was happening in that inferno. Fires like three things: fuel, air, heat. All three were in play, especially since there were huge holes in the side to allow fresh air to come in and fan the flames deeper into the building. You have a lot to learn about fire sciences ANOK. A lot.

Also, I forgot to ask, why do firefighters have a saying: Never trust a truss?

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh dear, you need to read and understand that yourself mate. You obvioulsy looked at the pretty pictures, and made your conclusions without understanding the text that goes with it.

This is what I have already explained, from the PDF you linked...

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the
expansion of a beam....

And thus it sags!

And? How is that contradicting the fact that sagging trusses can exert a pull-in force? Its not. Which part did I not understand? Or are you just making up nonsense in order to save your face? Lets look at the rest of your attempt to weasel yourself out of this.

First off, the WTC core columns and facade were more than capable of holding the load of the sagging trusses.
You have no evidence to the contrary. Secondly, we know the temperature distribution was not focused on the trusses, people were standing on the floors.

And what is your point here? Is this somehow supposed to change the fact that you were incapable of understanding the simple physics behind heated sagging trusses exerting an inward pull-in force?. You think that somehow, by instead of claiming it is impossible claiming that the force is not large enough, you are masking your epic demonstration of stupidity conscerning physics? Then you are wrong.

How about this, search the first post I made about this subject (it was in a thread with your friend bsbray or something), and look up what I think about NIST's theory of sagging trusses.

You also act like engineers don't take that into consideration when designing the floor assemblies. The information is known, and floors designed around those known facts. So they wouldn't build a floor assembly that could cause the columns to move in a fire due to sagging trusses. Do you think engineers are stupid?

Did you even read the conclusions?

No, I don't act like that. You don't have a clue about what I think about the sagging trusses theory. The whole point here is to confront you with the fact that you do not understand the simple physics behind the concept of sagging trusses exerting a pull-in force. You have been posting that this is impossible over and over. Now that you seem to realize how that was a massive blunder, you immediately start the standard disingenuous truther discussion tactic called shifting the goal posts. And right away you construct a straw man argument of "how I act". I nowhere act like you describe, you are are fat out lying.

The paper says nothing about the beam being able to pull in the columns. It's just a model 'used to predict the mid-span deflection and the tensile axial force of the heated steel beam at large deflection induced by the catenary action'.

Well done in shifting the goal post and constructing a straw man argument in an attempt to hide your miserable understanding in physics. Well, not well done at all, as it is all too obvious to any honest person.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh dear, you need to read and understand that yourself mate. You obvioulsy looked at the pretty pictures, and made your conclusions without understanding the text that goes with it.

This is what I have already explained, from the PDF you linked...

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the
expansion of a beam....

And thus it sags!

And? How is that contradicting the fact that sagging trusses can exert a pull-in force? Its not. Which part did I not understand? Or are you just making up nonsense in order to save your face? Lets look at the rest of your attempt to weasel yourself out of this.

And what is your point here? Is this somehow supposed to change the fact that you were incapable of understanding the simple physics behind heated sagging trusses exerting an inward pull-in force?. You think that somehow, by instead of claiming it is impossible claiming that the force is not large enough, you are masking your epic demonstration of stupidity conscerning physics? Then you are wrong.

How about this, search the first post I made about this subject (it was in a thread with your friend bsbray or something), and look up what I think about NIST's theory of sagging trusses.

So why haven't floor sections been tested in furnaces without fireproofing to see if this sagging can actually occur. The four tests that have been done so far with fireproofing did not fail.

It is so ridiculous that this is being debated without adequate data for TEN YEARS.

But then there is still the collapse problem.

A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why haven't floor sections been tested in furnaces without fireproofing to see if this sagging can actually occur. The four tests that have been done so far with fireproofing did not fail.

There have been tests, and sagging has been demonstrated. In order for the trusses to exert a pull-in force, they should not fail. Just like that you can't pull a horse with a broken rope.

It is so ridiculous that this is being debated without adequate data for TEN YEARS.

But then there is still the collapse problem.

A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

psik

It is even more ridiculous that you come with such a silly model.