It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 30
420
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Ah, the old any explosions must be demolition charges argument.


Nope. Nowhere in my post does it say anything remotely similar to "the explosions must have been demolition charges."

I was pointing out the fact that there were explosions, plenty of them, and yet when you're reminded of this you just say "they could be anything" and then proceed to ask why no one heard any explosions.



I did not say no one heard any "explosions." I said that the patterns of explosions indicative of CD were not observed.
What collpase theory are you proposing?




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'd imagine that those who secretly orchestrated the CD of the Twin Towers were probably attempting to avoid explosions obviously "indicative of controlled demolition".


They didn't do a good enough job, but clearly they tried.

edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I did not say no one heard any "explosions." I said that the patterns of explosions indicative of CD were not observed.
What collpase theory are you proposing?


I'm not proposing any theory, so smoke on that.

What demolition theory are you proposing that you think the explosions don't match with? There is more than one way to demolish a building. In fact nearly every building that is explosively demolished has to be approached with a different configuration just because the structures themselves are different.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Did you think I would not notice that you changed "not resisting the mass" to "not providing any resistance"? Of course there is resistance, that doesn't mean it will resist the mass.

As for those scientists, lets start with the ones that have published about it, like Bažant, Zdeněk P., Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson, Dr. H. S. Lew, Dr. Fahim H. Sadek, Dr. Frank W. Gayle, Dr. David D. Evans, Dr. Richard G. Gann etc.

True, you can argue whether they are brilliant or not, but that is a rather subjective. At least they have published, unlike any scientist who supports your idea.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
ok this is where i may have to say i stand corrected slighty as i went from memory of conversations we had some time ago but i am sure i knew i was not far off...ok here goes PLB



Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


The problem I have with a paper like "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1" is that when I search the name on Google, the first page already shows links that seriously debunk that paper. You also must have read those, but for some reason you choose to ignore or reject those debunks. Maybe you have good reasons for that, I must admit I am not qualified to do such assessment. I do however have a master degree and have read hundreds of scientific papers full with math, so I am not a total laymen. All I see is a lousy paper that is not peer reviewed, and is debunked thoroughly. Of course I can spent hours and hours in researching it, redo all the math to check if its correct, but I rather have you, who allegedly already done this, point me out why that paper is correct and those debunks are wrong.


then our conversation went futher and you stated this....I have an incredible memory and remember who i talk to...took me a bit to go back this far.



Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


The maths are actually rather easy, it is more the knowledge of the physics that I lack. But although I lack general knowledge, I have strong doubt that the assumption made in that paper are correct.

For example, he says "This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds. To estimate and illustrate the further momentum changes we can assume that the storey which is 25 storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the 24 affected storeys will vary linearly from the velocity of the falling section to zero."

On what exactly does he base this? No source is cited, no explanation given. If this assumption alone is wrong (which I very strongly think it is) all the rest of this paper is worthless. Why do I think this is wrong? Because there is no direct contact between the top section columns and the lower section columns, which he seems to assume. Most of the momentum has to be transferred through the beams, then through the columns to the lower floors. The amount of energy transferred is limited by the failure point of the connections between the beams and columns.

All in all that seems like a very complex system on its own, but just out of the blue, a linear system of 24 stories is assumed. Why not an exponential system of 4 stories? That would drastically change the outcome.

This is discussed in further detail in one of the "debunks". See here




so now i would like to ask you have a masters in what....so i can understand you more...and you said you were an Engineer....so if that is the case why would you be lacking knowledge in simple physics.

I am not trying to smear you in anyway...but i am consistant in how i approach this...and i also do like to know and learn...i would rather learn than to just attack...I do not believe the OS and so far i have not seen any real reason to to change because the Simple physics in the collapse an not be explained satisfactorily in three Steel structures one of which dont not even suffer external damage from being hit by a plane....and building 7 was even a more robust construction and has less potential energy to suffer such a collapse....If anything it would suffer a partial collapse with a large portion of the structure reamining intact...as it is supposedly the one building that came down strictly due to fires.

NOTE: just look at the Bazant and Zho report do their maths and you will see why is does not work and also then you will see why NIST should not have based their report on such a flawed report.
edit on 033131p://f44Monday by plube because: note



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Of course there is resistance, that doesn't mean it will resist the mass.


Thank you, You see, you do understand. There is resistance. Resistance translates to time. Time is something that the collapse was rather short on, considering the degree of resistance the laws of physics demands. By the way, saying "it will resist the mass" is the same as saying "there will be resistance".

And scientists don't ever suspend the inviolable laws of physics such as we are discussing - except some of them when it comes to the WTC. That should raise a red flag. That's the problem. The inconsistency.

In fact, in any other scenario, none of those scientists you mentioned would ever dispute that a structure resists falling mass. But a theory with the weight of political pressure and the machinery of state behind it can become official dogma, no matter how ridiculous it may be, while the truth will be savagely opposed.

Just ask Galileo.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
so now i would like to ask you have a masters in what....so i can understand you more...and you said you were an Engineer....so if that is the case why would you be lacking knowledge in simple physics.


I am an electrical engineer. I lack in knowledge about most of the physics that have to do with structural engineering. That doesn't mean I don't understand it when I read it per se, I just don't know it that well. Without study I won't be able to produce a basic model that describes a building collapse. I am not trained to do that.


I am not trying to smear you in anyway...but i am consistant in how i approach this...and i also do like to know and learn...i would rather learn than to just attack...I do not believe the OS and so far i have not seen any real reason to to change because the Simple physics in the collapse an not be explained satisfactorily in three Steel structures one of which dont not even suffer external damage from being hit by a plane....and building 7 was even a more robust construction and has less potential energy to suffer such a collapse....If anything it would suffer a partial collapse with a large portion of the structure reamining intact...as it is supposedly the one building that came down strictly due to fires.

NOTE: just look at the Bazant and Zho report do their maths and you will see why is does not work and also then you will see why NIST should not have based their report on such a flawed report.
edit on 033131p://f44Monday by plube because: note


There is a difference between not being satisfied by the current explanations and claiming out right that it is impossible for the buildings to collapse as result of gravity only. One is being a skeptic while remaining modest, the other is making ground shattering claims that need some very good study to back it up.

I am not really sure what mathematical calculation you are referring to. Maybe you can just directly post them here and explain why they are (in)correct, and explain the point you want to make with it.
edit on 3-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Without study I won't be able to produce a basic model that describes a building collapse. I am not trained to do that.


Neither are structural engineers. They study statics. Collapsing buildings would fall under "dynamics" in physics, since everything is not static and not every load is assumed to have an equivalent normal force. All the structural engineers have done in these investigations is try to get to an event where the loads can't be met by the structural integrity anymore, and then they throw their hands up and say what happens next must have been "inevitable." Of course.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Thank you, You see, you do understand. There is resistance. Resistance translates to time. Time is something that the collapse was rather short on, considering the degree of resistance the laws of physics demands. By the way, saying "it will resist the mass" is the same as saying "there will be resistance".


How much resistance do the laws of physics demand exactly? According to my semantics "to resist" something is to stop something. And I think that is also how plube meant it. But he should be given the opportunity to clarify.


And scientists don't ever suspend the inviolable laws of physics such as we are discussing - except some of them when it comes to the WTC. That should raise a red flag. That's the problem. The inconsistency.

In fact, in any other scenario, none of those scientists you mentioned would ever dispute that a structure resists falling mass. But a theory with the weight of political pressure and the machinery of state behind it can become official dogma, no matter how ridiculous it may be, while the truth will be savagely opposed.

Just ask Galileo.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)


And a couple of people on a conspiracy forum are able to see through it all. Well thanks, but I will go with the scientists.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


As evidence goes, let us review. We have aircraft penetrating the buildings and causing visible damage to exterior columns and unknown damage to interior structures. We have fires on multiple floors started by jet fuel and then fed by combustible building contents. We see collapse initiation following a bowing in of the exterior columns that have been exposed to the most fire. We have nearly identical events on nearly identical buiildings and the building that falls first was struck last. We see that the building that fell first was struck much lower which hints that the weight of the building above the impact might have something to do with the collapse. That is what we know. Based on this, explain the collapse.


Yes and it all happened just under one hour?

Answer this question pteridine, what created the “extreme temperatures” to melt the steel?
We know airplane fuel does not burn at these extreme temperatures much less all the office materials and carpeting. None of the contents in the WTC could reach the melting point temperatures to melt or bend steel. Remember you are claiming that airplane jet fuel and office fires are responsible for your pancake collapse at free fall; and it all happened in less than an hour after the plane impact the WTC.

I would like to see the science that supports this impossibility?
You do not support demolition or explosions so what melted the steel less than an hour?

Since you have “rejected” every answer by the leading experts, including science, why don’t you explain how all three WTC came down at free fall?

There is no evidence that the planes hit any of the core columns either. So if the outer floor joist were damaged, then we would have witness the outer wall and floor joist breaking outward, however the core columns would have never fell. In fact some of the floors would have falling, but the trusses connected to the core columns would have stayed connected, while the outer wall would have been hanging downward.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
And a couple of people on a conspiracy forum are able to see through it all. Well thanks, but I will go with the scientists.


Actually a bunch of people on this conspiracy forum (the majority), plus people on tons of other forums on the internet, plus people who don't even get on the internet, plus an organization of 1400+ certified professional architects and engineers that belong to organizations like the ASCE and others, plus 10,000+ non-engineers in the same organization, plus other organizations of scholars, lawyers, politicians, military veterans, and firefighters, pilots, medical personnel...

Half of all New Yorkers in 2004, according to a scientific survey conducted by Zogby, suspected the government was either complicit in the 9/11 attacks or knew of them in advance and failed to act. 2/3 of New Yorkers wanted another, more thorough investigation according to the same survey. Other surveys since have shown as many as 70 million Americans across the country would also like a more thorough investigation. And in addition to the organizations I mentioned above, some 16% or so of the entire US population already believes the WTC towers were demolished. I can show you these surveys if you like, or you could do a Google search if you know how to use Google.


But no, you have some clever remark to dismiss all of those people too, I'm sure, so yeah it's just a couple people here on this forum.


Like how many people believe something has ever been an indication of truth historically anyway.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Zdenfk P. Bažant, Yong Zhou and Mathieu Verdure did publish about the dynamics of the collapse. Maybe others too but I think they did the most significant work. Any serious publication that shows the collapse are impossible as results of gravity only does not seem to exist. While I have been pointed out several times that it is really simple.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
what i have stated over and over...the only force that would be a factor in the collapse of the buildings would be gravity...and even in Controlled Demolitions the only force acting on the collapse is gravity....you are using explosives to remove any resistance.

now please by all means have a read of this as it eaplains the physics fairly well

nice analysis

there is a great deal there and should all be looked at...

also Gordon Ross ME does a very good paper on theanalysis which is a good read....and a indepth look into the momentum transfer.

momentum transfer

Also read his paper on how the towers were demolished....anther good analysis

how they were demolished

these are large bodies of work so i will not just post them in here...but i have read both thoroughly and theya re well based.

and his video if one is to lazy to go look....even i go and look and read the reprts put forward by others...

video.google.com...#

edit on 043131p://f36Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Zdenfk P. Bažant, Yong Zhou and Mathieu Verdure did publish about the dynamics of the collapse.


Can you link me to the paper you're talking about?

If it's the same paper I remember then they were forced to assume variables that contradicted observed reality just to get their collapse to happen in the given amount of time. But I'll wait for a link and look through it again to make sure we're talking about the same paper.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


This is a fallacy called appeal to the majority. Something doesn't become true when many people believe it. Current polls show that 15% of respondents found theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition to be credible. That doesn't mean they believe the CD was used though, they just consider it as viable option. It means that 85% does not see CD as a viable option. An interesting question would be what this percentage would be among experts, aka people who actually know what they are talking about. For me only their insight is of relevance.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I am sure you must indeed have seen the papers. They are in the references on Wikipedia, here and here



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


What i am saying is the energy from the mass of the top of the building would be transfered to the entire lower structure...due to the laws of the conservation of momentum and engery...but what we see in the towers is the upper section does not even get to the point of where that energy is conserved as the top is collapsing on itself well before it even starts to have aeffect on the lower structure.not only that it is expelling debris at high rates of velocity horizontally....now a logical person would ask themselves why should that be the case since the only force acting on the structure is gravity.
that is why so much of the OS comes into question....now the latest Bazant paper was to try to cover up the flaws from the original Bazant Zho paper that was so flawed.
Now i have given you sites to go too...and so i think you might be interested in going to them and debunking them.
I have presented loads and will continue to present more but it is nice when people look themselves also...just as i will go read more of the papers you kindly presented...but the latest Bazant paper is still full of holes and Bazant is trying hard not to become NIST's scapegoat by saying they took the advice of these Engineers.
You what what these papers Bazant's included is they don't take into account how the Mass of the upper section fails as the Mass should have stayed for the most part intact through most of the collapse.
And in building 7 there is not top down collaspe as there was no plane that hit it...no jet fuels involved..and the only conclusion is fire....which would not have brought down a STEEL structure through Progressive collapse.




edit on 053131p://f00Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 053131p://f09Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

I am sure you must indeed have seen the papers. They are in the references on Wikipedia, here and here


Well the first paper starts with an assumption...


In stage 1 ~Fig. 1!, the conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

There is NO evidence that any steel was heated anything close to 800°C. If it did it would be a small local area, it could not cause all the undamaged building to give up its resistance.

Just like the NIST report your papers rely on assumptions for them to work. If none of the steel got hot enough to fail then it leaves the whole paper mute. Prove that fires got hot enough to cause the whole building to fail you'll have something.

In fact we know one hours worth of room fire is NOT going to get hot enough...


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Jet fuel would not make the fire hotter, it would only make other fuel, furniture etc., burn faster.
edit on 1/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 
Hi Plube,

I can't get that video to work as yet.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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 solely 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"?


The collapse of both WTC towers being due solely to gravity was empirically established by Sir Isaac Newton on July 5 1687 with the publication of his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy



Rational Mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated


Good enough?

I was hoping to peacefully bow out of this debate but if you think you can provide an alternate force to accelerate the mass of the buildings towards the earth I'm all ears?

Make it good, there could be a Nobel prize and a posh speaking tour in your near future.




top topics



 
420
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join