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

reply to post by plube


So except from swearing and personal attacks you don't really have anything to say. Do you think you are making a strong case with replies like this? Why don't you exactly show why you think your lines are placed correctly. Use some more clear video evidence from other angles while you are at it. Come back when you have finished a proper analysis.

reply to post by -PLB-


wow flippin is a swear word.....i am aghast....i think i have done ten fold at presenting Facts on the issue than you have once...I think my posts speak for themselves....and even yet when i tell you why the line is where it is....you still come back and just ask for more work to be done to please your silly replies that actaully do not contain any content.
I said to you i will approach you in a differnet manner than i normally approach people and i am doing so.
I am not being personal...and attacking you...i am just not giving you the credit for being a person that apparently holds a masters and is apparently a math person..
Now you comeback with analysis is faulty when if you look through the thread...myself and many others have been more than supportive in presenting indepth analysis....Can you please show me yours...and please go do your maths and show that the Bazant Report is right...and can you please show me how Jon Cole has not debunked the Nat Geo Analysis....
Do you know why...I will tell you why...Because you can't...You absolutely can't...do you know why....bcause it is not based in the real world...IT IS THEORETICAL.
The Theroretical paper...does not support the actual data...photgraphic,video,realworld.

reply to post by -PLB-

Sorry for butting in. Been following this thread for awhile now.

I can easily draw the lines in different locations making the top section whole again and making everything consistent with the fact the top section did not disintegrate.

So lets see it. The best way to demonstrate something easily is to actually demonstrate it, rather than saying how easily it would be to demonstrate it.

Edited to add: Oops sorry. I went back and saw your arbitrary demonstration on just the one photo. Will the arbitrary collapse line work on all the other photos?

And on another note:



Who drew these boxes to represent the buildings? I thought "serious" scientists only use complex models to demonstrate complex events. From reading some comments here, I would swear they would never resort to "boxes" or [gasp] "paint cans" to demonstrate a point.

reply to post by NIcon


For one thing...i am a structural Engineer....I am showing points...and the paint can are a simple physics demonstration....and actually was relevant.....as for simple drawings...i could (personally you go to any sites demonstrating physics) majority will use simple line drawings to make points.
If all the way through this thread those are the only two things that you can pull on then thanks for the input...I will see what i can do to make things better for you...but Replying with your own descriptions drawings ideas and any other useful info you might provide that would contibute to the discussion would be appreciated.
Also personally i would give kudos to people who are contributing to the discusssion as it will all help to coming to an understanding...would it not.
so just to pop in and say that, seems a bit strange to me...to follow lengthy thread pop in and just say the drawings are horible...hey....but in all the time i have been looking into this...with all the computer generated Models by Engineers,Scientists, and NIST not one has come up with a working Model yet as to how the towers collapsed due to fires and the planes.....but hey please present your paper and drawings and input.

Originally posted by NIcon
Will the arbitrary collapse line work on all the other photos?

Why wouldn't it work? My point is not that where I draw it is accurate, my point is that plube does not share at all how he determines where to draw the lines. How he can determine the point of collapse in an image obscured by smoke is a mystery to me.

Who drew these boxes to represent the buildings? I thought "serious" scientists only use complex models to demonstrate complex events. From reading some comments here, I would swear they would never resort to "boxes" or [gasp] "paint cans" to demonstrate a point.

edit on 6-1-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)

You do know the difference between the actual model itself and the visualization of the model?

reply to post by plube


Why don't you exactly explain how you determine where the point of collapse is, and how you determine the size of the top section, using images from several angles?

reply to post by plube

I was being sarcastic. For years on these threads, I've seen Richard Gage being ridiculed for using simple boxes to demonstrate a point. Rather than listening to what he was saying people would just ridicule his use of the boxes.

Then I saw you being ridiculed for your paint can demonstration. Rather than listening to what you were saying they ridiculed your use of paint cans.

So I was just making the point that Bazant included a simple diagram in his paper. So rather than reading what he has to say, why can't we just ridicule his simple diagram.

I really made no point about the collapse.

reply to post by -PLB-

I believe Plube included the sequence of photos to visually establish where the collapse began. How can we tell where it began? By locating the lower intact structure in the first four photos.

The point I was making was, if you don't agree with his/her example, demonstrate where and how he/she is wrong. Circle the areas on all the photos where you believe his/her error could lie. Or, if you prefer, bring in your own sequence of photos to show he/she is wrong. It's easily done.

And yes I know the difference between an actual model itself and the visualization of the model. I believe boxes could be used as a visualization, also. Paint cans can be used as a visualization, along with probably a million other materials. It all depends on what point is being discussed.

Originally posted by NIcon
I believe Plube included the sequence of photos to visually establish where the collapse began. How can we tell where it began? By locating the lower intact structure in the first four photos.

The point I was making was, if you don't agree with his example, demonstrate where and how he is wrong. Circle the areas on all the photos where you believe his error could lie. Or, if you prefer, bring in your own sequence of photos to show he's wrong. It's easily done.

I don't really see the point. It is up to plube to share how he determined where the point of collapse is, and how exactly he determined the size. Take a look at the image I edited:



You can not see what is going on behind that dust and smoke. Can you explain why my horizontal white line is wrong but plubes is correct?

And yes I know the difference between an actual model itself and the visualization of the model. I believe boxes could be used as a visualization, also. Paint cans can be used as a visualization, along with probably a million other materials. It all depends on what point is being discussed.

Then you must also know that plube and the guy with the boxes used the paint cans and boxes as actual model, to demonstrate that when you drop them on each other the collapse does not progress. The image in Bazants work is only visualizing something, it doesn't claim to actually simulate the physics that are going on. To make it a bit more clear:

Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system. Simulation is used in many contexts, such as simulation of technology for performance optimization, safety engineering, testing, training, education, and video games. Training simulators include flight simulators for training aircraft pilots. Simulation is also used for scientific modeling of natural systems or human systems in order to gain insight into their functioning.[1] Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist .[2]

versus

Visualization is any technique for creating images, diagrams, or animations to communicate a message. Visualization through visual imagery has been an effective way to communicate both abstract and concrete ideas since the dawn of man. Examples from history include cave paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Greek geometry, and Leonardo da Vinci's revolutionary methods of technical drawing for engineering and scientific purposes.

(Wikipedia)

reply to post by NIcon


i appoligise it was early this morning...lol...i saw my statements bd did not see the big green bit saying whom the post reply statement....

Cheers...

reply to post by -PLB-

Yes it was up to plube to share, which I think he/she did quite well in the original and following posts.

However, you did not share how in your rebuttal photo you determined your locations.

"Can you explain why my horizontal white line is wrong but plubes is correct?"

How can I make a judgment when there's no explanation as to how you came up with your photo. Do you believe your photo accurately reflects what occured? And if so why?

reply to post by -PLB-


I can quite easily say that there is margin of error but i would say mine is a little closer...because the fulcrum would have to be situated where the core sits...and also if it is where your red box is the corner of the building in the visible area would already be showing signs buckling in that area.

And the point of the photos is showing...i have to be careful how i word this.....that the upper section did not stay INTACT...that is why i capitalised the word.

now once again that is common sense and logic....also ask yourself this.....does heat rise....yes it does...so the collapse would not initiate any where below the fires....we can tell by the fires and we saw where the planes entered the building from videos and photos....so this can be set with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
but you my friend can keep up the semantics all you want...you see your box example could not be where the tilt happened because it would show by where the building was suffering the forces being applied to it from the upper section. Do we see this occuring...no we dont.....also you can see where the slight breeze is blowing the smoke over the top NW corner roofline....now with your box being lowered it does not take that coner into account.
Yet again it is all semantics...because you have not come back with the maths on why Bazants model would work. i can say why it does not work...is because the mass does not exist as it should for Bazants model to work.

Additional: the red box that you drew just elongated the box...but one other thing the you failed to notice...is the expulsions going on at that level....but i am glad you feel realworld is less accurate than the theroretical world.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I can quite easily say that there is margin of error but i would say mine is a little closer...because the fulcrum would have to be situated where the core sits...and also if it is where your red box is the corner of the building in the visible area would already be showing signs buckling in that area.

And the point of the photos is showing...i have to be careful how i word this.....that the upper section did not stay INTACT...that is why i capitalised the word.

now once again that is common sense and logic....also ask yourself this.....does heat rise....yes it does...so the collapse would not initiate any where below the fires....we can tell by the fires and we saw where the planes entered the building from videos and photos....so this can be set with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
but you my friend can keep up the semantics all you want...you see your box example could not be where the tilt happened because it would show by where the building was suffering the forces being applied to it from the upper section. Do we see this occuring...no we dont.....also you can see where the slight breeze is blowing the smoke over the top NW corner roofline....now with your box being lowered it does not take that coner into account.
Yet again it is all semantics...because you have not come back with the maths on why Bazants model would work. i can say why it does not work...is because the mass does not exist as it should for Bazants model to work.

Additional: the red box that you drew just elongated the box...but one other thing the you failed to notice...is the expulsions going on at that level....but i am glad you feel realworld is less accurate than the theroretical world.

edit on 033131p://f11Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

Ironically, the line I added is the one that made the box shorter. So all your arguments why the lower red line is wrong is actually about the line you drew. You have just debunked your own line.

(ps, what semantics are you talking about?)

Originally posted by NIcon
Yes it was up to plube to share, which I think he/she did quite well in the original and following posts.

However, you did not share how in your rebuttal photo you determined your locations.

Plube just unknowingly explained why his own line is wrong, and mine is more accurate. So he did all the work for me. (although not everything he says makes sense to me).

How can I make a judgment when there's no explanation as to how you came up with your photo. Do you believe your photo accurately reflects what occured? And if so why?

No that is pretty much my point. Its not me who came with that image, but Plube. I just picked the spot of collapse so it coincided with my box. But since what is actually happening is obscured I could have picked pretty much any spot.

I am talking about lowering or changing the lines on the red because the semantics are the part where we are talking about the disintegration of upper section...and the maths that fit the model of Bazants report....the semantics of not reading what is being said to you. The red shows how the collapse progresses through while the lower section is still intact and the whole Bazant report requires that to be intact.
the red show the progression down word of the section....yet no damage to the bulding...somovving the red line at the bottom does not make a difference....it is the anitiation of the collapse the white line that show the Approx area where the clollapse initiated....it is an example....to whow the movement involved....it is not there to be absolute.
it is to keep in line with the top of the structure to show how it moved down without impactiong the lower section and causing damge at point of impact.

NOTE:Also it is the white box that is the real import tant one because it show original position..and the red is the movement.

reply to post by plube


so plaese answer me this....if you would be so kind...this section is moving down would you agree...because i will start with what you agree on to see if you can agree on one thing....just one thing.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by plube

 

so plaese answer me this....if you would be so kind...this section is moving down would you agree...because i will start with what you agree on to see if you can agree on one thing....just one thing.

Ok I can agree to that.

ps, I didn't understand a word of your previous post.

reply to post by -PLB-


ok now...as the roofline is dropping....looking at the photo with the white box....is the lower section being impacted as of yet.

reply to post by -PLB-

I believe you came up with your own image by modifying plube's original image. So how did you determine that your new upper block was actually the correct size of the stories above the collapse zone?

Now If you can agree to that...we might be getting somewhere...and if you don't agree....please show me where it is collapsing...because i do have photos from different angles and such....but lets see what we can conclude together and then we can see where the differences actually lay...because if it is moving down without affecting the lower section..then that would mean the top section it self is collapsing would you agree?.