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

reply to post by pteridine


You do realise that the term 'controlled demolition' does not specify a method right?

None of those things have to be done for it to be a controlled demolition.

In fact all it means is the collapse was not natural.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It also proves that the collapse didn't initiate with floors falling. The perimeter and core columns, and the floors between them, all went at the same time. The core structure held up the antenna and the antenna even starts sinking at the exact same time.

So much for NIST's theory, and so much for any "progressive collapse" theory that revolves around floors coming loose and starting everything. The whole top section of WTC1 just starts folding into the impacted area like an accordion, all at once, core columns and perimeter columns and all.

The top also tilts similar to WTC2, which I'd never noticed before, attention to detail.

Also surprisingly similar to the top down demolition in that video I posted a couple of times.

reply to post by bsbray11


I am not really sure what you are at. The text says that the top section behaved like a rigid body and was tilting, so collapse would initiate at all places at the same time. It also says that once perimeter columns began losing their supporting power, the loads were rapidly transfered to other columns, which consequently also failed. All that happened is a very short time.

It seems to me that explanation covers both the point that all corners started to collapse virtually at the same time, as well as rapid failure of the columns.

reply to post by ANOK


A demolition of a building means that the collapse was induced. As I see it, a "controlled demolition" controls the collapse. This term is synonomous with "building implosion" which is a technique practiced by several demolition companies. The preparations are extensive and require stripping the building to expose structural elements, precutting structural elements, caculating and placing charges, safely wiring the primary charges, connecting a string of secondary charges with detcord and delay caps, and often internally cabling structural elements together. This is not an easy task that can be done in a few minutes.

reply to post by bsbray11


Your bombast becomes you. I'll just wait for the argument apart ripping to find out how you think my statements are inconsistent.

Troll on.

reply to post by -PLB-


sorry but i will but in here...you are completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to analysing ...you pretend your someone your not and then you have the odacity to say the building was falling approaching the speed of sound ...you have outright lied...and then you try to tell an engineer how to analyse...the gull.
Soon as the builing tilts...that yet again negates what the report says....because it is tilting it is not a complete loss of support. Also because it is tiliting....it means the top section could not have even achieved the acceleration due to gravity that the report is stating because it is being supported by whatever it is tilting on,the CORE suprise....So you choose to be lost....(the apparent non existant core).
Now you can come back and say all kinds of things....but they are completely...meaningless...because you have said you have a masters...you have said your an Engineer...yet your ignorance completey goes against everything you state.
also you try to tell me what a compression line is...but i treat you as someone who would have a logical brain because of the things you state...in that you could see for yourself LOGICALLY the floor levels that drop...you will sit there and quote NIST but you will not even CONSIDER other Engineers thoughts on the issue....YOU ARE A TROLL...not only that you are probabably a kid who is misguided...or your told what to write....
And you will say this is because i do not agree with you...(typical troll line) but I say this because you do not have or give the respect others have shown you throughout this thread.
No like i have said...YOU start to back up your thoughts with YOUR own diagrams...analysis....and proper citations....that come from who you SAY you are...till then take your Foolish semantics somewhere that you can fool your audiance.
when you can actually produce something that would even come close to showing you are who you say you are...MASTERS,MATHEMATICIAN,ElectricalEngineer....soon i should think you will say doctor....but i know you cannot say physicist because you don't know the difference between 30m/s and 340m/s.
I say respect is something one should earn...not something one should just get.
you can read the report all you want...but the whole progessive collapse is..get this as i have stated before ....
THERORETICAL.
It is not FACT in the first place.
your words speak for themselves...this is not a personal attack....but it is to say to you, you say you are things you are not...so therefore cannot be trusted in anything you say.

Remember....as it says on the box....Deny Ignorance.

Now i will show you the difference between FACT and Theory

FACT: planes hit the buildings.....
FACT: there were FIRES
FACT: the buildings came down
FACT: people were killed
FACT: wars started over it
FACT: Lucky Larry made loads of dosh
FACT: the building did not suffer progressive collapse

THEORY: the buildings suffered progessive collapse

MY theory....the top of the building was tilting...the way to arrest said tilting....(only way) Remove the central core
Theory the central core was removed with explosives

FACT: if central core is taken out from BOTTOM up Building suffers complete global collapse

And even though all theese things being stated hold true...you will still come back and argue...
If you do it shows one word

FACT: TROLL

Originally posted by pteridine
A demolition of a building means that the collapse was induced.

OK

As I see it, a "controlled demolition" controls the collapse.

What is 'controlled'? Does it mean neat, orderly, perfect? No it means it was not a natural collapse.

This term is synonomous with "building implosion" which is a technique practiced by several demolition companies.

No it's not. Implosion is ONE type of controlled demolition that is used to bring building down into their footprints.

The preparations are extensive and require stripping the building to expose structural elements, precutting structural elements, caculating and placing charges, safely wiring the primary charges, connecting a string of secondary charges with detcord and delay caps, and often internally cabling structural elements together. This is not an easy task that can be done in a few minutes.

None of that is NECESSARY, it is done to make it easier and safer.

And you're right, it's not an easy task. In fact implosion demolition is the most difficult to achieve, as I have also pointed out many times.

This is why it is not possible for the same outcome to happen from fires and asymmetrical damage, why can you not see this?

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Again you contradict yourself, you admit controlled implosion demolition is difficult to achieve yet you're happy to believe a natural collapse would produce the same result.

Here again for you...



You can't deny you can see the outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building. That is the result of implosion demolition, how else can it be explained? What other logical explanation could there be?

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am not really sure what you are at. The text says that the top section behaved like a rigid body and was tilting, so collapse would initiate at all places at the same time.

Tilting is the exact opposite reaction to dropping vertically on all 4 corners and faces, and the core too at the same time. The tilting is what happens when part of the structure is resisting being collapsed, so that isn't the same as everything collapsing at the same time. Everything collapsing at the same time, is when the tilting phase ended abruptly when all 4 corners, faces and the core structure just started plummeting straight down while spewing massive amounts of debris in every direction.

It seems to me that explanation covers both the point that all corners started to collapse virtually at the same time, as well as rapid failure of the columns.

If this all hinges on enough perimeter columns being buckled, how many buckled perimeters columns can you show exactly? And do you know what the safety factor (redundancy) of the perimeter columns was? Either they would all have to fail simultaneously, which is what NIST can't explain, or else they gradually accumulated, in which case you should be able to show a very large number of them buckled according to how redundant those columns were.

Originally posted by pteridine
Your bombast becomes you. I'll just wait for the argument apart ripping to find out how you think my statements are inconsistent.

I asked you why the explosions weren't consistent with CD.

First you gave me one response.

Then I repeated it back to your and asked if you would like to confirm that that was in fact what you were arguing.

Then you posted again with completely different reasons.

And now this non-response after I already told you what fallacies were in both posts.

That's okay. Just refer back to my last post. You know, it's hard to take you seriously.

reply to post by bsbray11


The cute little smiley face is certainly the high point of your post. My response must have been too subtle for you.
Make good on your threat and rip my arguments apart.

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't really see what your issue is. As soon as the top section starts tilting, all columns get compromised. Since it behaves like a rigid body, they will all break as soon as there isn't enough support anymore. There is either enough support or there isn't. There is no in between.

If the NIST report isn't detailed enough for you, I can't really help it. Two pages ago you didn't even know what was in it so I doubt you have read it at all. Maybe you start reading it first, or at least the summaries.

Originally posted by pteridine
The cute little smiley face is certainly the high point of your post. My response must have been too subtle for you.

I guess you've already given up trying to defend your "arguments" then.

Make good on your threat and rip my arguments apart.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So first of all, can you make your mind up?

Are you looking for cables, or a specific, pre-determined pattern of explosions, or both? And is there anything else you want to throw out there before I rip this argument apart? Because you don't actually need cables and neither do the explosions have to fit a specific pattern/sequence to cause damage to the structure over time. They really could be set off "randomly" at distanced intervals until the whole structure is ready to come down, because there is no reason doing this would cause any real problems.

Any explosion that caused damage to the structure is equivalent to a "pre-cut." And we already know there were multiple explosions. So that part is irrelevant since it would actually match with the explosion testimonies, not negate them as being explosives.

Try reading my posts more often before responding to them.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't really see what your issue is. As soon as the top section starts tilting, all columns get compromised.

No, they don't.

I'll "draw you a picture" in so many words to show you the difference.

Let's assume the "top block" and "bottom block" thing like Bazant's model shows. The front face of the top block tilts forward. This puts the columns between the top and bottom blocks in this area under compression. At the same time, it puts the columns on the opposite face under tension because that area is being stretched by the tilt while the opposite face is being compressed. With me so far?

The columns below the columns under tension are still intact, and are actually experiencing a decrease in loading, not an increase.

If you are having trouble following then I can post real images instead of just trying to describe it to you in words. I assume you know the difference between compression and tensile loading.

That is why a tilt is different than dropping straight down on all 4 corners and faces instantly. Like I said before, a tilt indicates resistance is still there and is the whole reason there is any tilt in the first place. But that situation rapidly changes in the collapses as if they are entering a new phase caused by an entirely different mechanism, where all columns appear instantly compromised. This could correspond to an event where the core structure is severed and the loads redistributed onto the perimeter columns cause them to fail.

If the NIST report isn't detailed enough for you, I can't really help it. Two pages ago you didn't even know what was in it so I doubt you have read it at all. Maybe you start reading it first, or at least the summaries.

Right, two pages ago I didn't know what it was. Lying really helps your argument. You're apparently the one who hasn't read it and doesn't know what it says, because the comment you're referring to was in regards to an aspect of the collapses that NIST didn't even analyze. Sorry. They offered a hypothesis on initiation only. Look through my posting history, friend. I've been discussing NIST's investigations since 2005 when I first started posting here. I notice you totally ignored me asking you how many perimeter columns were buckled prior to the sudden onset of collapse, and what the safety factor on those same columns was too. How convenient for you. And also shows that you're the one who hasn't read their report, because that was the main thing they tried to hammer to make their hypothesis seem legitimate at all.

reply to post by plube


Please keep your insults and false accusations to yourself. Either respond on topic in a mature way, or don't respond at all.

reply to post by bsbray11


Two or three pages ago you thought that collapsing floors initiated collapse according to NIST. I can only conclude you had no clue what was in their report. If you don't understand that tilting caused enormous stress on some columns so be it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Two or three pages ago you thought that collapsing floors initiated collapse according to NIST. I can only conclude you had no clue what was in their report. If you don't understand that tilting caused enormous stress on some columns so be it.

Now it's "enormous stress on some columns."

What happened to "As soon as the top section starts tilting, all columns get compromised"?

You don't even know what you said one post ago.

reply to post by bsbray11


Try to use logic. What happens to the columns that are under extreme stress? They fail. What happens to their load? It is transfered to other columns. What happens to those columns? They will be under even more extreme stress. What happens to the columns that are under even more extreme stress? Need I go on? This is a process that happens in a very short time. All columns fail in that short time.

You can get this all from the page I referred too. Maybe not so much dumbed down, but its really there.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I don't really see what your issue is. As soon as the top section starts tilting, all columns get compromised. Since it behaves like a rigid body, they will all break as soon as there isn't enough support anymore. There is either enough support or there isn't. There is no in between.

If the NIST report isn't detailed enough for you, I can't really help it. Two pages ago you didn't even know what was in it so I doubt you have read it at all. Maybe you start reading it first, or at least the summaries.

This is a far cry from an earlier post of yours when you said,

"The theory proposed by NIST is not that a single floor collapsed on the floor below it, but that the complete top section fell down as result of failing columns. That is the mass of at least 16 floors if I recall correctly, including the columns and whatever was on the roof. Bazants model assumes that this mass perfectly falls on the load carrying supports below it."

Now we have a different tack, so no en masse of 16 floors coming down after all. You now embrace tilting in both towers, and Bazant's arse is out of the window, thank God for that. To be fair the WTC1 video that has so much airplay is illusiary, and akin to looking at someones back as they bend down. The dusting of the concrete is so complete that most of what you see after the collapse at ground zero is mostly broken steel, but that includes the spans that are seen in some pics as almost complete as they originally were. Concrete gets stronger with age, did you ever try busting into dust, a small ball of dug-up old concrete with a sledgehammer? that means that the concrete contributed to the lateral strength of the floor spans underneath, enhanced by thirty years of ageing. In my non-expert opinion, if the towers collapse was a natural event, as described by NIST, there should have been large pieces of concrete everywhere.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Try to use logic. What happens to the columns that are under extreme stress? They fail.

Wow, no. Why don't we try this again? I'll use real logic.

#1 - You are still changing your tune from "As soon as the top section starts tilting, all columns get compromised."

#2 - You have not qualified "extreme stress" with actual numbers, and you haven't compared it to what the columns would actually be able to withstand. So would they fail? Using logic based on engineering analyses, you haven't provided enough information.

#3 The most common and basic use of the word means that the column has just reached its yield strength. That means permanent deformations begin occurring. That's all, and nothing else. To predict what happened at the WTC with a model like Bazant's, even if you could show the columns were overloaded, you would have to go way above and beyond just loading it beyond its yield strength, to forces required for completely smashing and shattering the columns apart into sections of however many feet. And then of course sending them out hundreds of feet into the air, which Bazant also can't account for like we discussed earlier, without dooming his model to its own failure.

What happens to their load? It is transfered to other columns. What happens to those columns? They will be under even more extreme stress. What happens to the columns that are under even more extreme stress? Need I go on? This is a process that happens in a very short time. All columns fail in that short time.

Do you have any idea what a "safety factor" is? Factor of safety? Structural redundancy? Ringing any bells?

If the building needed every single column to stand, then the plane impacts would have immediately made them collapse. You ever thought of that?

What a safety factor is, is the factor by which the design loads can be multiplied before the given column will reach its yield strength. The perimeter columns in particular had very high safety factors, especially on the higher floors where they carried less total weight than the columns on the bottom floors but were still of similar size.

You have to show that a sufficient number of perimeter columns were buckled in the first place before this whole scenario you are alleging can be legitimized.

If you were familiar with the NIST report, you'd already know what length they went to, to try to show all these buckled columns. But look at how many they actually show. Go ahead and look it up, see how many you can kind buckled at a maximum, and then compared that to the number of total columns. And then look back at the safety factor, which is going to be at least 2 at a bare minimum and more like 5+ on those floors. The original engineers bragged in a press release during construction that there were perimeter columns somewhere within the structure (sensibly near the top, again because they were expected to carry the least amount of load) that had an FoS of 20.

And then also keep in mind that a buckled column still carries some load, and isn't even totally compromised.

When you start putting all that together, the actual details of what you're posting, you'll find a reality check. It doesn't add up.