A grade S275, hot rolled structural steel section, subjected to fire conditions which causes its temperature to rise above 600°C, may suffer some deterioration in residual properties 🖕on cooling.🖕 In no situation however, irrespective of the fire temperature, will the room temperature yield stress or the tensile strength fall further than 10%🖕 below their original values. Thus, where it can be safely concluded that the steel members will be utilised to less than 90% of their maximum load bearing capacity or that any loss in strength will not bring the properties below the guaranteed minimum, replacement should not be considered necessary providing the member satisfies all other engineering requirements (e.g. straightness).
I'm really not on either side of this argument, mainly because I haven't done enough research either way.
That said, u/deepspace2015 provided mathematical figures to help convey his/her side of the argument.
I'm sort of curious what your retort is? I mean, you clearly point out that he/she is wrong. How?
The only "objective evidence" you provide is in your original post, citing "load capacity of steel at 650+ degrees Celsius". How do you counter their argument (besides blatantly stating they are "wrong")?
The links I provided are in support of controlled demolitions. Just to make things really clear, the official narrative is also a conspiracy theory by definition.
Give it up, A) no one here cares about your opinon on the matter and B) no one is gullible enough to fall for your ridiculous attempts at stirring shit up.
And as we've already established no one here cares about the opinions of some random wind up merchant. So just save yourself the energy and give it up.
then please explain how a progressive collapse leads to free fall for at least 8 stories. how can it be both progressive, and remove all resistance from below at once? is it road runner physics?
Alright you're obviously inexperienced in actually reading academic critiques of Bazant's article so there's no point in either of us continuing here. It will all end with you still believing the official conspiracy theory
So your bawls are softened, were they hit? How does that bring down your shaft? Some people like being kicked in the bawls..... Makes their shaft harder....
34 comments
1 TheGhostOfDusty 2016-09-20
Rule 10 repeatedly. Removed.
Only warning.
0 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Ah shucks. We were having a bit of fun with this one. You're right though.
Don't forget to add the "only warning" to the mod notes.
2 TheGhostOfDusty 2016-09-20
Heh. Uppity Faithers who were children when 9/11 happened can be amusing but kind of melancholy too. So brainwashed.
8 CullTheMasters 2016-09-20
0/10
6 dippintime 2016-09-20
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams rip
5 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
-3 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[removed]
4 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[removed]
0 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Rule 6. Removed.
1 hillarityclinton 2016-09-20
Was this meant to be a reply to me?
1 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Yes. All caps comments are not allowed in this sub so your comment was removed.
3 deepspace2015 2016-09-20
A grade S275, hot rolled structural steel section, subjected to fire conditions which causes its temperature to rise above 600°C, may suffer some deterioration in residual properties 🖕on cooling.🖕 In no situation however, irrespective of the fire temperature, will the room temperature yield stress or the tensile strength fall further than 10%🖕 below their original values. Thus, where it can be safely concluded that the steel members will be utilised to less than 90% of their maximum load bearing capacity or that any loss in strength will not bring the properties below the guaranteed minimum, replacement should not be considered necessary providing the member satisfies all other engineering requirements (e.g. straightness).
-4 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 smashton89 2016-09-20
I'm really not on either side of this argument, mainly because I haven't done enough research either way.
That said, u/deepspace2015 provided mathematical figures to help convey his/her side of the argument.
I'm sort of curious what your retort is? I mean, you clearly point out that he/she is wrong. How?
The only "objective evidence" you provide is in your original post, citing "load capacity of steel at 650+ degrees Celsius". How do you counter their argument (besides blatantly stating they are "wrong")?
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 smashton89 2016-09-20
Thanks for your prompt response.
I'll check your source out.
1 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Check this out too: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Open-letter-to-Professor-Zdenek-Bazant-regarding-errors-in-his-WTC-analyses.pdf
And these:
1 smashton89 2016-09-20
Thank you.
Just so I am clear... are these links arguing for or against a conspiracy on 9/11?
I'm guessing with titles like "The Missing Jolt" they are arguing that there is a conspiracy surrounding 9/11...
1 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
The links I provided are in support of controlled demolitions. Just to make things really clear, the official narrative is also a conspiracy theory by definition.
1 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Also, the author of the open letter to Bazant just participated in an AMA in /r/911Truth on the 18th. You might enjoy reading through it here
2 Pyehole 2016-09-20
I have heard much better screeds from chronic and homeless alcoholics in pioneer square.
1 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
3 noworthyicon 2016-09-20
Give it up, A) no one here cares about your opinon on the matter and B) no one is gullible enough to fall for your ridiculous attempts at stirring shit up.
1 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
3 noworthyicon 2016-09-20
See point A.
1 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
2 noworthyicon 2016-09-20
And as we've already established no one here cares about the opinions of some random wind up merchant. So just save yourself the energy and give it up.
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 noworthyicon 2016-09-20
Whatever floats your boat, I'm sure your little tirades are amusing to some users.
1 DrDougExeter 2016-09-20
We hate you too, also hockey sucks
1 TheGhostOfDusty 2016-09-20
Don't doxx yourself bro!
1 JTRIG_trainee 2016-09-20
then please explain how a progressive collapse leads to free fall for at least 8 stories. how can it be both progressive, and remove all resistance from below at once? is it road runner physics?
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
2 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Open-letter-to-Professor-Zdenek-Bazant-regarding-errors-in-his-WTC-analyses.pdf
More errors in Bazant's paper:
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 SovereignMan 2016-09-20
Alright you're obviously inexperienced in actually reading academic critiques of Bazant's article so there's no point in either of us continuing here. It will all end with you still believing the official conspiracy theory
0 Putin_loves_cats 2016-09-20
You're all idiots! See... Idiots! I don't know what I'm talking about, but you are idiots? BRB, need to jerk off to step sis porn!!! Idiots!!!!
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
2 Putin_loves_cats 2016-09-20
Did your hand get tired? *mouse click.
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-09-20
Jet fuel melts awkward sibling boners?
0 [deleted] 2016-09-20
[deleted]
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-09-20
So your bawls are softened, were they hit? How does that bring down your shaft? Some people like being kicked in the bawls..... Makes their shaft harder....
2 TouchMeHerePls 2016-09-20
So good