Because that is what you asked for. (fyi, it is also the fire rating for the steel as well)
No, I explicitly asked for how the cert load would be calculated on the WTC 7, I did not ask you to give me the steel used.
So there are your ASTM standards right there as you asked.
Quote me on that. I'm am 100% that I asked for calculation of cert load, not ASTM standards (which, as far as I can tell, do NOT include "cert load").
This is why I show you disrespect, because of shit like this. Of course there is no "cert load" character for character you will find. This is obviously an abbreviation to save time, abbreviations are even worse when talking from engineer to engineer. I already explained to you, that you need to be more specific on exactly what you want. There are 100s upon 100s of different certifications by a 100 different names composed of 1000s of factors. I already explained how some of these factors come into play when determining these certifications. I know you read this, because you replied to it and asked for the metal standards to start off with. I also explained the combination of agencies that issue these certifications. I also never said "cert load of the whole building"...that is just stupid...you know I never said that...
Abbreviation for what? What kind of certification? Me and disputeone listed two standards for loads, but apparently you were not speaking of that. So what were you speaking of? You claim that the strength of x structural component has a strength of y cert loads... Since you can specify an actual value, you must be able to know which value you're talking of right? And how it's calculated? Surely you're not just claiming thigns about something you don't know? There is no evidence that it's an actual abbreviation engineers use (at least not on a large scale), in which case it's incredibly dishonest of you to expect anyone else to understand what you're talking about.
And I know you never said "cert load of whole building", but you have claimed the cert load of structural components of the building. You'll have to back that up.
I have met many like you, and will meet many more. Can only argue trivial dumb little things, such as semantics, instead of arguing with substance or addressing the actual content. You also say no one has presented an actual argument which is just bold face stupid...I know I have introduced rebuttals you side step (such as this dumb little stunt) and never address, so have others you have done the same with.
I'm not even sure if cert load is a real thing or some bull you just made up or picked up somewhere. I am arguing substance, such as: Please prove your claims regarding the structural strength of the WTC buildings. You say I have to look it up, but facts that support you are literally non-existent it seems like. I CAN'T find what you're claiming, and I shouldn't have to. Your claim, your responsibility.
Oh, did I say
no one has presented an argument? Well, I didn't know that. I certainly can't find me saying that in this thread. Can you quote me, or is this just one more of the many lies you come up with?
You're the one sidestepping, you hypocrite. You're the one who can't give a straight answer to a simple question - what is cert load, and how is it calculated? Your only rebuttals so far are "look it up yourself".
You wont even address a simple website link where the information is designed to appeal to a large group of people, not just engineers or architects...
How am I supposed to "adress a website link"? Do you expect me to cite the whole website and analyse all of it? I'm discussing this with YOU, if YOU have anything you think is supported by the website YOU have to point it out for me. Again, you're making ME do YOUR job.
Nor will you provide any rebuttals besides copying and pasting a report that has already proven to be false as well as completely non scientific and not provable from their own hiding of inputs and other data.
For the N:th time, I'M NOT USING IT AS EVIDENCE. Stop lying.
You rely on word twisting and general omission, i wont say lies because I am trying to be nice as promised.
Word twisting? I've challenged you multiple times to quote me on thigns you claim I say, but you just silently let it pass you hypocrite. You're the one twisting my words.
However, with all your actions stated above, you want me to spend an hour or two posting stuff up that you will ignore? Especially when you wont even address a simple website link (also, nothing is easy to read in the original material, I have to use a magnifying glass at times to see certificate numbers and other fine details. It was the 60s, before the cool zoom in and out of electronic data, it was all thrown together page by page...god speed. You should see their wiring diagrams, I am glad i was not an electrical engineer at the time...or even now).
What should I adress? Again, I'm discussing this with YOU, not the creators of that website. Don't you know how a discussion works?
Just in case we ever get to the point of communicating and sharing information (doubtful)...Full disclosure, some records have been lost, as details was spread from the city to the port authority..(including some certification standards and other design aspects) Though I don't find this suspicious because of the age and changing of hands. Though, we have found enough to be able to piece together the random missing pieces of info.
Yes, it's really doubtful that we'll ever get to the point when you're ready to share your sources with me, despite me sharing my sources with you.
So...again...please form a rebuttal...to something...if not, please do not stink up the thread.
Rebuttal to what? You're responding to twisted versions of my arguments, how am I supposed to adress that?
I find your search for the truth disingenuous for a polite term, as I am attempting to be nicer.
What a world we live in, when lying about what others claim is considered "nice".