It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

yes same as many of the OS reports and models that had to take out the central cores to make thier programs able to have the progressive collapse work..also just as witht hte pancake theory they had to remove bits here and there to even get the simulations to work...but you knw that is ok isn't it///because it fits in with the lies are are perpetrated.
but like i had said before i do not care wether i get you to believe because i know where you stand...just as you don't provide any thing to make your points...All i see is someone blasting off in a grunt going ppppfffft not possible....but People are working hard on gathering facts even though the EVIDENCE was uickly removed and We as people can only work with whats availible to us....but hey....people were going nuts;;;saying look what Nat Geo has proved it wasn't thermite...and well it shoved right into their faces by someone with little money...and showed what is possible with a much lower grade material...Thermate.....but still we keep up the work...yes there have been some far fetched Theories out there....but for the most part the people who just don't Believe the OS are working on real world possibilities....not way out theories.....
Like some people say it would take thousands to pull this off...when really it wouldn,t but my friend can stay in the dark,

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by plube

So you agree your model is total nonsense, but your argument is that other models are not that good either, so its ok that your model is also unrealistic? And because you think I don't really come with good arguments, you coming with total nonsense isn't that bad either? This doesn't really appears like the behavior of someone who is after the truth. More like the behavior of someone who is trying to convince others of his believes and uses deception in order to achieve this.

I have yet to see a scientific study that shows why progressive collapse with gravitational force as only cause is impossible. It is always a claim that comes from the intuition of most of the time some pretty much meaningless person. Physics are very often not intuitive, and things that we don't expect happen all the time.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by plube

My degree is master of aeronautical science, Embry–Riddle 1991.

I have spent the last 8 years as an commercial construction consultant in the pugent sound area and know my way around a slide rule, as you said the physics are the same no matter.

Your phraseology and venacular are suspicious, you dont speak like an engineer and you dont use engineering terminology. I thought that possibly english was a second language hence my question regarding your education but I see that is not the case?

Your opening statement read..

Actually i think explained fairly well why the building did not collapse because of gravity acting alone

The WTC towers both fell because of gravity acting alone. There were a series of events preceding the collapse that allowed gravity to do its work but the collapse was soley due to gravity. That may seem an issue of semantics to someone unfamiliar with the work but I would expect a different response from an engineer.

if it collapsed from just the gravity alone there is actual slowling process and the main structure below would be absorbing the kinetic energy

The lower structure absorbed part of the kinetic energy to the point it failed too, the part it didn't absorb was transferred to the next floors preloading the remaining structure expediting the subsequent failure of the remaining floors.

What do you mean by "slowing process"? Didn't they teach you F=MA in school?

Then you went on to say..

when the top is cruching down there is what is called a Crush up effect.

A crush up effect huh? Be honest, you just made that up. I've heard of live load, dead load, sheer, uplift, compression, load transfer et. all but I have never heard of this mysterious "Crush up effect". Perhaps you could elaborate (with the appropriate citations of course)

then there was...

I have a little a home experiment for you....take some paint cans....

Which you went on to defend as a "scaled down test"?

All I can say is that yes, all sorts of tests are done everyday in the industry and some of them involve scale replicas but....they are conducted using representations of the various materials as well as like construction and then a lot of math to scale things back up again.

paint buckets huh?

Lastly, this bit...

the towers were not symetrical in thier construction...the base of the towers used more robust materials in the first twenty floors of the it had even more structural integrity than the upper...

Symmetrical construction means just that, symmetrical. Its a design point, an aesthetic. It has no bearing on the rigidity of the structure.

I feel I should mention as well that ALL multi story buildings are more rigid at the base, from a lowly residential 2 story to the World Trade Center. Its a design feature used to transfer and dissipate shear force, like when you have an earthquake or strong wind.

Certainly not something that an engineer would feel necessary to post and completely unrelated to the forces and mechanics under discussion.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk but you either need to try harder next time or get a refund from BCIT.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

I too studied structural engineering and I don't agree with your hypothesis.

Don't have time or inclination to give my own, but just to say the correct spelling of sheer force, is shear force.

It may sound moot but it's what your doing to the previous poster.

You may be due a small refund as well.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Actually i got the term Crush up Right from the very Bazant Zho report that nist used in their reports...
These are the infamous Engineers whom wrote the report on progressive to stay in tune with the remarks i used their same terminology....and yes it is a transfer of kinetic energy...

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant 1 , F. ASCE, and Mathieu Verdure 2
Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also
typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of World Trade Center
towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one
floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a one-dimensional continuum model
of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more
effective to characterize the continuum by en energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse,
in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each
phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of
a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated
and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will
be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy
dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential
during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of
the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse
driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-
of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of
mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the
most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. Using inverse analysis, one could identify
these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a
shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of WTC are useless here. It is proposed to obtain such records
by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions.
The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or
by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be
valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under
extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as
earthquake and foundation movements.

Now did i just make it up

yes they did teach Force = Mass x Accerleration....

but also there a force equal and opposite too so the mass of the Upper structure it is not going to continue to accelerate when there is a force acting upon it in an opposite direction is it?.It is encountering a resistive force.

the whole crush down crush up is the basis of their i guess they should get their money back also.

As far as the symetrical part that was to show that there was a greater resistance that the upper mass would be subject to as it was collapsing into the apparent structure below which seems to have shown almost negligible.

now we will stick to some more the highly regarded comments by Bazant.

Dr. Bazant attempts to explain the balance of energies at a point in time immediately after
collapse initiation. He states that,
" To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential
energy release for a fall through the height of at least two floors, would have to be
absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations of one buckle, i.e., Wg/Wp would have to be less
than 1. Rather, Wg /Wp ?= 8.4 (3) if the energy dissipated by the columns of the critical
heated floor is neglected."

I think i have been fair in using the same terminology as the people i am disputing

My degree may not be as high as yours and maybe i should bow down to your superior self....But my Degree has served me very well from a very reputable Institute.

Just because i tr to simplify term for people on here i would not assume they have no idea what they are saying because how i chose to type in this forum is not how i wold write a report on any given project...this is a converstional tone in here...and i tend to keep it as such.

as for the paint cans it may appear a simple thing ...but it is relative in the simple physics...and yes scale down to a usable model would be a task and a half and that is why we tend to only half badly computer generated models of the situation of what occured on the day.

I would be more than happy to listen to your analogy of why the central core just telescoped into themselves straight down.

edit on 093131p://f58Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 103131p://f00Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by bigyin

You are correcting my spelling of shear (
) force but pass on "crush up effect" and "slowing process" of gravity?

I'm only speaking the truth, if you studied engineering then you know it as well as I.

I'll get right on that refund as soon as the day comes when I get called on the carpet for posting gibberish.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

I was not stating a slowing of Gravity i was stating the mass would be slowing due to the resistive force of the structure below...because the Bazant Report is stating it is the mass that was the cause of the failure of the lower structure.(accelaeration due to gravity is a constant)

now you ask if i had made up this Crush up...and i showed that i had not...I showed it is the experts whom put forward the progressive collapse theory.

Also you pointed out that Engineers would not use words such as Absorbed rather the the transfer of kinetic energy.....but one should stick to the syntax being used just as in many many engineering books the syntax of that particular text is many times explained.
edit on 103131p://f07Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 103131p://f08Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by plube

I'm not trying to argue and insult, I'm just keeping the debate honest.

I usually stay out of this debate but was reading your post and that it necessary to respond.

I disagree with the mechanisms you have used to describe your point, simple as that, but maybe its just me.

I wish you luck in your career, we are all friends here.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Cheers and i always look forward to peoples opinions....but did i not show that i did not just make this crush up

Also i had never heard the term Crush up until i read this Bazant Zho report on progressive once again thanks for your statements.....much appreciated

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

I didn't make any such claim. You misinterpreted what I wrote and didn't bother to read any responses.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by plube

Stacked paint cans are an exceptionally poor model for a building and will not scale at all. They only model stacked, empty paint cans. This seems to be a variation on the Gage cardboard box model which is also a particularly poor model for a supposed architect. Note that the building vertical structures were not crushed. The individual floors were sheared at the attachment points of the floor joists to the inner and outer structures. The outer columns peeled away as the floor members failed. The floor members were the only ties between the inner and outer columns once the collapse started so without the floor members, the outer columns were unsupported, laterally.
Arguments based on energy loss slowing the collapse should show that the energy loss due to shearing of the bolts was significant. Given the masses involved, it would be difficult to claim but I am open to the argument. As to thermite; any variation is too slow to sequentially collapse the building. Any explosive composition fast enough to do so would produce the sounds and sights of controlled demolition which were not recorded by any means. Thermite could be used to initiate the collapse but this means that gravity did the rest and the arguments that the collapse was too fast are rebutted. Initiation by thermite seems unlikely, as there is no evidence for such.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by pteridine

you know what i am going to throw a wrench right into your comments on that one....Even in NIST's own report...get this....PANCAKING was not at all supported...

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake
theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive fail-
ure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the
floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phe-
nomenon” [3].
Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and
should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by
the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary
“Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pan-
cake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular
Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited
ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the
“pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be
set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

this is where Steven Jones is actually agreeing with NIST on this one....

also what you and others try to say about the paint is a simple structure to show you something about physics involved....Basic stuff....It shows the structure below will..Resist the falling mass....SIMPLE.
all take two cans drop them...take three out of the ten and drop them.....It is a nice little you can look at a japanese counter to the Bazant Zho THEORETICAL progressive collapse broken down nicely for people to read.

A nice analysis

as for the joints being Sheared....please show me the Evidence of it...OOPS....on a slow boat to foolsh of me.

Oh yes and you say the floor ties were the only ties....hmmm what about the top spire structure(hat truss)

ok i guess your right insignifigant in joining the outer walls to the core.

And the trusses just weeak little toothpicks that would just release it loads without any resitance what so ever...and the spandrel joints would just bend like aluminium.

and lets not forget those pesky weak core columns that we see jutting up though the floor...

so we can see how it makes perfect sense now that the buildings were absolutley substandard and should have fell during the 1993 truck bombing where the potential energy stored in the towers was far far greater because the explosion happen in the basement.

but nope....I would say that people looking into this in a manner that should have been done from the start are how do we say.....DELUSIONAL.

edit on 123131p://f58Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 013131p://f10Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by plube

Thank you for the wrench. Note my wording "The floor members were the only ties between the inner and outer columns once the collapse started so without the floor members, the outer columns were unsupported, laterally." The top structure, at that point, was just falling mass.
As an engineer, you may be able to estimate the likely failure points during collapse. After viewing the videos of collapse, do you think it more likely that the columns were crushed or that some connections failed? What connections do you think may have failed under load that would cause the outer columns to splay outward?
In the collapse videos is one that shows a core standing for seconds after the collapse. Along with that core are a few extant outer columns waving in the breeze. I note that what is missing seems to be all the floor trusses holding those columns to the core. Given the analysis in your reference, how is that explained? In your engineering experience, would 5/8" diameter bolts shear or would end plates of the trusses detach first?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by plube

The difference between the pancake theory and the "NIST" theory is that in the pancake theory the collapse was initiated by a failing floor, while in the "NIST" theory the collapse was initiated by failing columns. After that both theories predict that the falling weight falls on the floor below it. But then again, where else should it fall on.

I can not really believe you are a structural engineer, or if so you are terrible at it. Statements like "the structure below will..Resist the falling mass....SIMPLE" are simplistic to such a degree, I would expect it to come from a total layman, but not somebody with an education in structural analysis. There are so many forces at play here that there isn't even a single computer model that reproduces it accurately. If it is that "simple", why isn't there a single credible scientific publication explaining it? Why don't you publish a study including all the physics?

This isn't simple at all, and you can't just intuitively say what will happen.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can not really believe you are a structural engineer, or if so you are terrible at it. Statements like "the structure below will..Resist the falling mass....SIMPLE" are simplistic to such a degree, I would expect it to come from a total layman, but not somebody with an education in structural analysis....
This isn't simple at all, and you can't just intuitively say what will happen.

Actually, the statement you quote is perfectly correct and, yes, it really is that simple. That you are quibbling about this shows that, no matter how simply he tries to put it, you're never going to get it.

But your inability to comprehend simple laws of physics expressed simply - as a favor to laymen like you and I - does not indicate a lack in anyone except yourself.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
The WTC towers both fell because of gravity acting alone. There were a series of events preceding the collapse that allowed gravity to do its work but the collapse was soley due to gravity.

Can you show me where this was empirically established? You know, with actual data and scientific evidence, instead of just "because I say so"?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by Malcram

So where is your study including all the physics? Should be done in say, 10 minutes, as it is so incredibly simple.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by pteridine
I didn't make any such claim. You misinterpreted what I wrote and didn't bother to read any responses.

So if you didn't make the claim, will you at least admit what is obvious, that if fire could initiate such a collapse, then necessarily thermate could also initiate it? Then we can go from there.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

The quote you disputed wasn't discussing "all the physics", it was regarding an aspect of the physics - an inviolable aspect, which cannot be negated or avoided no matter how "complex" the circumstances of a collapse.

Don't you get that?

Of course he's going to express it simply because he's talking to laymen and because it IS simple, and unavoidable.

You picked an argument poorly by disputing the indisputable, and yet you question his understanding of physics?
edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by pteridine

Since you are open to suggestions...i was thinking about what you were saying about the Explosion necessarily having been lets just assume(which i don't like to do) that Cole's ideas are quite sound...which personally from his demonstrations they are...least much more sound than the NAT GEO debacle.
so you have these columns..and you use enough material explosives to blast off the bolt they are actually inside the boxes of the external wall components...also the glass in still in the structures...and you would assume that your going to hear the explosions as you would in an actual controlled Demolition.

now lets look at the access points for the bolts...on the construction phase and on the pieces that there are actual photos of and we will play spot th difference.

look at the shape of the access holes...i know they are somewhat far away but near the floor where two sections join...the access holes are realtively rectangular....and consistant in shape.

now you notice the deformation in the access it from stresses alone...i am not sure but it is curious to me.

shall we look a little closer up.

well i think i will leave interpretations up to you but i don't think that Jon Cole is absolutely so far off the mark myself.
But i do know that Bazant Zho and NIST for relying on their paper and never once taking the possibility of CD's into account of the building collapse is gross negligence.

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in