yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by ANOK

Sagging of the trusses can not create enough extra load to cause the columns to be pulled in. The idea is just ridiculous, and based on layman assumptions.

There are no assumptions. Sorry but you cannot say something is ridiculous, you have to explain it in this forum.

If there are supports missing from impact and you have sagging trusses (as you agree to), how is the load being redistributed? Just answer the question and please stop referring back to another post or a pdf file. Remember, if there is sagging, it means it is 'pulling' the columns in two directions. Inner and outer columns. There is no 'pushing' that occurs and it is shown in picture and video.

By not directly answering the question then you are simply trolling and with the lala doh land you are attacking my intelligence making it personal and not about the thread.

No one is ignoring the connections as I am the one who introduced the addition of the dampers connection that you then started to use in your posts. I am aware there are multiple trusses but did you know that there are multiple connections between the inner and outer columns that are involved. The bolts and damper connections did not fail. They held on as designed, quite well actually, and that is what killed the WTC in the end.

Watch the video and you can see the columns.



So again, please explain who there would not be enough load to cause them to sag and eventually fail?

Originally posted by esdad71
So again, please explain who there would not be enough load to cause them to sag and eventually fail?

And so again, the question isn't whether trusses sagged and failed.

The question is how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns?

We already know trusses can sag and fail. Nice try, but you fail.

Refer to this to see why sagging trusses do not put a pulling force on the columns...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe one of these you will actually address what I'm saying, rather than trying to make it seem as I am denying something else that you can debunk.

Truss failure leads to truss failure, not column failure. You have nothing that shows otherwise. If you think that cartoon in your vid is reality, then I don't know what to say. That vid is pseudo-science that can only fool the uneducated.

Originally posted by ANOK
Refer to this to see why sagging trusses do not put a pulling force on the columns...

You're contradicting yourself. Not only are you quoting a PDF to support yourself which states that catenary action, and therefore pulling certainly occurs, you also said this:

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by exponent
It confirms unequivocally that trusses exert inward pulling forces on columns. You are undeniably wrong on this point, you can't simply deny it and expect not to be ridiculed.

Yes it does.

But what it doesn't confirm unequivocally is that force is enough to cause the columns to be pulled in. Says right there in that PDF in black and white mate. You can read and understand English right?

So which is it? If you can't even keep your own mind straight on the matter then I've no idea how you expect anyone else to understand you.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71
So again, please explain who there would not be enough load to cause them to sag and eventually fail?

And so again, the question isn't whether trusses sagged and failed.

The question is how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns?

We already know trusses can sag and fail. Nice try, but you fail.

Refer to this to see why sagging trusses do not put a pulling force on the columns...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe one of these you will actually address what I'm saying, rather than trying to make it seem as I am denying something else that you can debunk.

Truss failure leads to truss failure, not column failure. You have nothing that shows otherwise. If you think that cartoon in your vid is reality, then I don't know what to say. That vid is pseudo-science that can only fool the uneducated.

I am asking you how. I know how it happened and you think it did not happen that way. Again, you keep referring to pdf files and other posts which do nothing here. You have to craft an actual answer or you are simply trolling here and trying to spin people in circles. There is no pseudo-science and sorry I did not 'fail'.

Your comment Truss failure leads to Truss failure? What does this one even mean as a sentence. It would be like looking at a car accident and saying brake failure led to brake failure. Ok, but why?

You then try to get out of the argument by stating you do not know what to say if I believe the video. You are supposed to give a reason why. It is fairly easy.

So, please explain how a pulling force would not cause them eventually fail and how they redistributed the load since you did not do it last time?