The nist wtc experiments imply the steel weakened 50%
Buildings have a 10-20x safety margin
Jews did wtc
>>7698809
Can't argue with that... math?
1 divided by 20 is 0.05, which is a 50% drop (0.05% drop is the inverse of 50.0% gain).
The match checks out.
It wasn't just the steel weakening, the whole structure was fucked at initial impact. You know, by having a plane pass through it...
>>7698940
You can't just disregard numbers with a one word dismissal.
>>7698970
I can because they're wrong.
>>7698809
http://www.egr.msu.edu/firestruct/Fire%20Research%20PhD/Stress%20Strain%20Temperature%20Relationship%20for%20Steel%20by%20Poh.pdf
Fig 2.
>>7698986
So you found someone who disagrees with nist?
>>7698990
I mean, this is young's modulus, which is stress over strain. This just means that the slope of the graph decreases, but the actual strength is measured by the stress at which the bars enter the plastic region and ultimately yield.
>>7698990
Also, this only accounts for the elastic region, hence the "Elastic modulus".
Don't talk about shit you don't know about.
>>7698996
Doesn't change the point.
>>7699005
You've lost.
>>7698986
Your graph implies the temperature just happened to be just barely sufficient.
>>7698940
>It was pretty much the steel
Really? Because I'm pretty sure I saw a plane hit it.
>>7698809
>Buildings have a 10-20x safety margin
No they don't.
Maybe if you replaced the ''x'' by a ''%''.
>>7698809
you dont understand what Young's Modulus is do you OP? or how it has literally nothing to do with yield strength?
bad b8. not everyone on /sci/ is a fucking idiot like you
>>7699103
>10% safety margin
>collapses when hit by a gust of wind
>>7699128
Wind loading is part of your design load.
