posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:35 PM
Originally posted by exponent
It's the same as the last time you claimed this, and the time before, and the time before. A truss fully sagging is a catenary. A catenary is purely
in tension. The papers I linked you both discussed this but you refused to read them.
Yes the same answer to the same claim you keep making over and over again. See how that works?
All truss elements are under tension, tension transmits through the top chord to the bolted connections. Same as last time you claimed
So how does that cause the sagging truss to pull in the columns? If it is sagging then it cannot put any more tension on the columns than it did in
it's normal state.
When steel is heated it expands. That expansion has to go somewhere. If it is pinned, in tension, between two unmovable points it cannot expand
outwards, so it sags. If it cannot push the columns out it will not pull them in either. All the tension is taken up in the SAGGING.
Yes they could, trusses only exerted a limited force individually but worked together to pull in the outer walls. Some trusses did break bolts,
some whole floor sections disconnected. Doesn't change the evidence for it and the illogical nature of your claim. Same as last time you claimed
There is no way that the trusses could put enough of a pulling force on the columns to move them, as I just explained. The bolts would be a far more
weak point than the columns, in fact the trusses themselves would be more likely to fail before the columns.
My claim is not illogical, you're just confused by the physics involved.
I understand that video just fine. It demonstrates a restrained frame undergoing a sudden shift into massive tension. The frame is made of a
very inelastic material and it survives. Same as last time you claimed this.
In that video the floors lost their weight bearing columns, they had extra weight added, they were still rigid (not sagging from heat), and yet still
didn't pull in the columns they were attached to. The WTC floors lost no weight beating columns, they had no extra weight added, and they were
sagging from heat.
No you didn't understand the point of the vid. Maybe you do now I've explained it?
Why wouldn't you read the two papers I linked you that described exactly the configuration in the towers and their experimentation with
modelling these configurations? Is a youtube video good enough but peer reviewed papers from noted structural engineering schools not?
Because I already read everything you offer. You have nothing new. If there is a point you want to make, make it.
Stop using a double standard please.
I make my points, I don't give you stuff to read with no clue as to your point. You are not debating, you're basically saying I don't believe you
because I read this.
edit on 12/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)