Originally Posted by
DGM
You really need to stop saying this. Where is this "proven"?
The erratums NIST were forced to issue speak directly to the accuracy of their analysis.
Originally Posted by
DGM
Why do you only focus on this one area where the NIST clearly does not?
Sunder stated quite clearly that this was NISTs position re the c79 connection in his tech briefing. And that area interests me so I would like to see the model results wrt that area. Is that okay with ya?
Originally Posted by
DGM
Was the rest of the floor area structure pristine?
Dumb question.
Originally Posted by
DGM
Obviously column 79 failed.
Yes. And obviously there was an initiating factor in that failure ie the girder failure, which followed the supposed expansion of the beam.
Originally Posted by
DGM
Why do you think it did?
I don't know. But it wasn't thermal expansion as per NISTs analysis.
Originally Posted by
DGM
This is how you form a hypothesis. When are you guys going to do it? I'll read it if you ever do.
Okay then. How much does the 53ft beam expand at the given temp?
Originally Posted by
DGM
Stop trying to prove you're right by showing some point of the NIST wrong.
The assertion is that NIST are wrong. How should we go about proving that this assertion is correct without proving that NIST are wrong?
Originally Posted by
DGM
It's childish when you have no coherent hypothesis of your own. .
NO, What would be childish is to accept an invalidated NIST hypothesis just because of the absence of an alternative.