Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.
And they never said simple.
So... you disagreed with the statement I made
Originally posted by me
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation would have been appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations
by saying
Originally posted by Homage
hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.
belittling it to a standard statics problem is ignorance as gnosis would put it
But then you found out it was NIST who aid it and you said
Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.
And they never said simple.
If you can't see that you are clearly trying to rationalize your assertions to all match what you already believe... there may be no help for you.
You Disagree when you think it's me. You find out it's NIST, and of course, you change your opinion.
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.
And they never said simple.
So... you disagreed with the statement I made
Originally posted by me
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation would have been appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations
by saying
Originally posted by Homage
hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.
belittling it to a standard statics problem is ignorance as gnosis would put it
But then you found out it was NIST who aid it and you said
Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.
And they never said simple.
If you can't see that you are clearly trying to rationalize your assertions to all match what you already believe... there may be no help for you.
You Disagree when you think it's me. You find out it's NIST, and of course, you change your opinion.