Gamolon, it is very likely you simply don't understand what is going on. The NIST hypothesis of a walk-off to the west cannot possibly work with girder A2001 at 500 degrees C and the western side plate of column 79 in its way. When the girder expands it will go up against the flange of column 79, which faces the end of the girder. Then after 3 inches of lateral travel to the west, due to the five beams to its east expanding and pushing it to the west, it will be trapped behind the side plate and unable to fall off its seat at column 79. NIST ignored the column side plate being in the way and ARUP did not.
And both theories require temperatures that didn't exist because the fires were out at least an hour prior to the actual collapse at the alleged failure location. In NIST's case, the invented temperature had to be exact and in ARUP's case, the invented temperature had to exceed NIST's invented temperature. So both theories incorporate false data.
No, I understand perfectly well. Did you come to this conclusion based on the portion of ARUP's report that discusses/analyzes the girder coming off its seat? Did you come to this conclusion based on the portion of ARUP's report that discusses/analyzes the girder coming off its seat? Did you come to this conclusion based on the portion of ARUP's report that discusses/analyzes the girder coming off its seat? Yet ARUP still agrees with the same conclusion as NIST. That the girder came off its seat. Correct Tony? When I asked you about ARUP's conclusion, you stated that you doubt the girder could have been pulled from its seat without any further explanation. How can you use something you have no faith in as proof of something else being wrong? I guess you have gone over the ARUP's calculations that show the girder being trapped by the side plate and agrre that they are correct, but when you looked further into ARUP's calculations that showed the girder being pulled off its seat, you found errors? Is that why you doubt ARUP's conclusion? Please elaborate.
And OCT critics agree with the OCT conclusion that WTC7 is no longer standing. So that means everyone who agrees with the OCT conclusion that WTC7 is no longer standing agrees with the OCT as to how that happened, right?
There is a difference between pulling the girder off the seat and pushing it. In the pushing situation the expansion is limited to less than 6 inches. In the pulling situation the beams can sag and pull more and the pull will bow the girder and shorten it and let it get by the eastern column 79 sideplate. It is a stretch as the beams would have to get very hot, but it is possible. The push-off is impossible because even if the beams could push further they would be in compression and the forces required would cause them to buckle before bowing the girder enough to shorten it and get by the western sideplate. I really don't have time for your obviously disingenuous questions, unless you want to go one-on-one with me about the building collapses on the 911 Free Forum like I did with tfk. Maybe you think you have answers he didn't. Send your request to the 911 Free Forum moderator One White Eye.
