- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,822
- Reaction score
- 84
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Irrelevant.
Yes that's right, your quote is entirely irrelevant as it pertains to a masonry supporting wall.
Irrelevant.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How much of WTC7's weight was supported by masonery ?
Yes that's right, your quote is entirely irrelevant as it pertains to a masonry supporting wall.
gravity
So the structure could not arrest the movement?
What structure? The 47 storey steel framed one, or the masonry wall that your quote refers to ?
So what do you think about everyone but Tony agreeing that bulging is a sign of instability?
Oh, wait. Maybe you don't agree.... hard to tell with your ambiguity shield up.
Irrelevant. You were asking about the bulge. The bugle IS evidence of movement.
For an engineer you aren't impressing folks at this point.
So what do you think about everyone but Tony agreeing that bulging is a sign of instability?
Oh, wait. Maybe you don't agree.... hard to tell with your ambiguity shield up.
I asked you a straightforward question.
Tony has fallen silent......
So what do you think about everyone but Tony agreeing that bulging is a sign of instability?
Tony needs to claim the bulge was just the curtain wall in order to keep the CD fantasy alive. There is no plausible basis for such a conclusion based on the evidence. He is doing what CT's do - working the problem backwards, trying to maintain his conclusion in spite of, not because of the evidence.
You could say the bulge was movement due to thermal expansion which was very local to the curtain wall. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are imagining. Curtain wall bulging due to thermal expansion is not a structural issue. It wouldn't be much different than a hanging piece of curtain wall swaying in the breeze.
It doesn't sound like there was any movement of the structure.
Instability of what ? A masonry wall or a steel frame ?
Tony had to go eat. It doesn't sound like you do that. Do you have your dinner delivered to your computer?
Wow.... Just wow.
All that handwaving.
And blatantly in the face of fire professionals that document the KNOWN warning signs of structural instability.
Lets look at them again....
Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
Mar 4, 2009
One of the greatest hazards in firefighting is the threat of collapse in a building. What makes this scenario even more dangerous is that we do not have to be on the inside to get killed. We must be alert on the fire scene, and be aware of the signs of imminent collapse.
Too often we are being hurt or killed as a result of exterior collapse situations. Statistics from the USFA reveal that the number of firefighters lost annually due to residential collapses have tripled since the 1980s — despite a decrease in the average number of annual fatalities during the same time period. Structural collapses can come without any warning, and often are very difficult to predict.
Incident command should consider the following when determining collapse potential:
Structural inadequacy, poor construction, illegal or non engineered renovations
Fire size and location, and conditions on arrival
Age of building
Previous fire
Fire load to structural members
Backdraft or explosions
Engineered lumber, truss joists, nail plates
Load increase as a result of water load
Cutting structural members during venting operations
Cracks or bulges in wall
Water or smoke that pushes through what appears to be a solid masonry wall
Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling
Truck operations notice soft or spongy footing
Weather extremes
ALL the red were noted....
ALL were signs of collapse potential.
You can't handwave it away.
I'll take the firefighters over your *ahem* guess about the bulge.
Playing stupid again, aren't you?
The what has been laid out time and again.
Tony needs to claim the bulge was just the curtain wall in order to keep the CD fantasy alive. There is no plausible basis for such a conclusion based on the evidence. He is doing what CT's do - working the problem backwards, trying to maintain his conclusion in spite of, not because of the evidence.
The most likely cause of a bulged exterior in a fire would be due to thermal expansion. That would be curtain wall panels constrained at their ends and bulging due to the constrained expansion.
It is not a structural issue, although layman like you may have thought so.
What one are you referring to? The example you gave, which was a masonry wall, or a steel frame?
What wall had the bulge?
At what approximate floor levels was the bulge located?
But one face of the curtain wall is outside the building, which presumably is much cooler than the inside of the building. This would keep the curtain wall cooler than the interior and thus make it much more likely it was the perimeter and/or core columns that were experiencing thermal expansion. This would also explain the other signs of movement in the structure which you deliberately ignore.