Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.
Last time I asked for discussion, you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.
Obvious lie is obvious.
Well at least you are finally talking about forces. That's to be applauded.
And BHS did refuse to discuss his structural analysis claiming two decades of experience was required to understand it. I can find the post if you care to disagree and call me a liar.
The usual fucking clap trap....
You have not once discussed anything of significance engineering wise/structural/or anything of the sort. I only spoke about the " prerequisites" that come with almost 2 decades of study and experience because of your constant refusal to discuss anything except for "well NIST said". I even said it is understandable, as I wouldn't want to explain to a M.D. why something was not possible in their profession.
It was your refusal to discuss these things that spawned that comment....
Keep twisting rayzor.
Toodle-pip
I have opened discussion of the collapse mechanism dozens of times, you just weren't listening. So here is the problem once more.
This is a complex collapse with many unknowns, not the least of which is the fire temperatures, there is clear unambiguous evidence of temperatures around the 1000C, The structural steel loses 90% of its strength at those sort of temperatures, even at 600C it's down to about half, I posted a graph, which you ignored.
The damage caused by the aircraft impact needs to be modelled as well, which means detailed structural models of the aircraft as well as the building itself, That's where we got stuck last time around, you refused to acknowledge that any aircraft at all hit the towers, and my response to you was we can't progress beyond that point to discuss collapse without starting from the impact.
My conclusion is simply, that unless you accept the structural damage done by the aircraft impact and the structural weakening done by the fires, you simply can't progress to discuss collapse initiation.
There is plenty of room for doubt about NIST's analysis, but not enough to jump up and down shouting "controlled demolition". More than enough for another enquiry, which I've said many times.
If you recall my first two questions to you were about evidence of demolition and the FEA models you had done back at UNT.
When asked for direct evidence, you replied.
As for smoking gun piece of evidence?? Well I have 1000s....I really don't know where to start.
Where do you want to start?
Here we are a thousand posts later, still no "smoking gun", It's getting close to time to call BS. on BHS.
For ME's bonus question, the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg, so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg,
You can assume the center of mass of the combined disc and weight is half way between the center of the disk and the point load. Assuming the disk is uniform thickness and homogeneous,
I'm surprised BHS didn't rise to the challenge?
If the forces are ever unbalanced, the structure will redistribute in such as way as to rebalance the forces. That is loads shift until the forces rebalance. Or something breaks.
If you were doing it for real, you would just draw it up in a modelling package, input the material properties and specs for the bolts, then run FEA.
Poll