It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 44
420
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Problem is, that didn't happen.

Prove it.

Did you miss how many there weren't?

How many, and how did you determine this?

And it wouldn't conform with their own data on the reserve capacities of the columns. See the difference? No, of course you don't.

Didn't we just establish that subsequent compromised columns and tilting causes uneven loading, easily exceeding those reserve capacities?

That changes nothing about the forces represented at the connection of the truss and perimeter columns. I don't guess you've had physics 101 either then. Please tell me how you increase the amount of force an object is exerting due to its weight, without changing its weight, and when changing the angle at the connection would only stress the connection itself and not increase the load experienced by the column. It doesn't matter what shape it changes into or whether it's hanging like a wet noodle in your imagination.

It is about the direction of the force. You show a severe lack of understanding in physics.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Problem is, that didn't happen.

Prove it.

Prove that 54 in a row weren't compromised, or that half of the total columns, all on one side, weren't compromised?

If you can't see that there are columns still standing on all 4 faces of the building where they were impacted, you're beyond the kind of help I could give you.

If you think 54 in a row were compromised, that was your claim buddy, not mine. 54 columns is almost a whole freaking face of perimeter columns. Good luck proving that one. I thought you were being hypothetical anyway, but apparently you're serious.

Did you miss how many there weren't?

How many, and how did you determine this?

All the ones that aren't buckled, and I looked with my eyeballs.

And it wouldn't conform with their own data on the reserve capacities of the columns. See the difference? No, of course you don't.

Didn't we just establish that subsequent compromised columns and tilting causes uneven loading, easily exceeding those reserve capacities?

No, where did we "establish" that? I saw you suggest it, and then give a ridiculous hypothetical that had nothing to do with reality.

Did I miss something else?

It is about the direction of the force. You show a severe lack of understanding in physics.

Nope, your slip is showing again. The maximum force is applied when perfectly lateral (perpendicular) to the column. When you bend the connection at an angle, that means the force has developed a vertical component which is not translating horizontally to the column, and that component of the force represents a force that will eventually shear the connection from the column if it becomes large enough. It would not affect the column whatsoever.

Looks like you're still the one who hasn't had physics 101.

Do you know how to work a free body diagram? Or do vector math? If you know how to do vectors, then just represent the forces with vectors here and you'll immediately see that changing the angle only creates a vertical force that is irrelevant to the column except that it will sheer the connection. Even little kids know if you take something and bend it around its perpendicular connection to another object, it doesn't help you pull, it's only going to snap the connection. They might not know what that means but they would intuitively understand. All you are doing is deluded yourself in whatever direction you see possible to cram your bias. You are assuming answers before you think, just based on your beliefs. You haven't even read the report, you're just going to it to argue with me.

Do you make it a habit of making up your mind before getting into arguments about things?

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove that 54 in a row weren't compromised, or that half of the total columns, all on one side, weren't compromised?
...

So you can't prove that claim? Are you making assumptions based on what you want to be true? Or do you have some actual evidence showing most columns on the south face being intact just before collapse?

All the ones that aren't buckled, and I looked with my eyeballs.

How many are that? Based on what evidence exactly?

No, where did we "establish" that? I saw you suggest it, and then give a ridiculous hypothetical that had nothing to do with reality.

Did I miss something else?

Do you disagree that subsequent compromised columns and tilting causes uneven loading on the intact columns? If not, why couldn't it be possible that some columns exceed their load capacity, even though the load capacity of all columns combined is still sufficient?

Nope, your slip is showing again.
...

Hmm, you really don't understand that the force is shifted in the horizontal direction, Interesting. I don't really feel inclined to explain it to you. I think the best thing you can do is go outside, find two small trees, tie a rope between them, and see what happens when you put weight on the rope. You will notice the the trees are pulled toward each other. There is a horizontal component to the force. When you repeat the experiment with a rigid beam you will notice the horizontal component is gone and the trees are no longer pulled toward each other. Good luck.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:21 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove that 54 in a row weren't compromised, or that half of the total columns, all on one side, weren't compromised?

So you can't prove that claim?

I was never trying to prove 54 perimeter columns in a row were compromised. That was the erroneous garbage you came up with.

Or do you have some actual evidence showing most columns on the south face being intact just before collapse?

Who ever said anything about "most columns on the south face"? First it was enough to cause all the columns on those floors to buckle, then it was 54 in a row on a single face compromised, and now you just want to see "most columns on the south face." Again, they were at 1/5 their reserve capacity. Why don't you use some math for once instead of constantly trying to weasel this into a semantic argument instead of a scientific one.

All the ones that aren't buckled, and I looked with my eyeballs.

How many are that? Based on what evidence exactly?

Much much more than 1/5, based on my freaking eyeballs attached to my brain. I know what fractions look like. 1/5 is smaller than what you see in photos.

There, both impacted faces. You don't even have the intact columns down to 1/5 on a single freaking face, let alone the entire floors.

Do you disagree that subsequent compromised columns and tilting causes uneven loading on the intact columns?

There is no tilting without the initiation. There is no initiation with enough buckled columns. Resorting to magic now I see.

Nope, your slip is showing again.
...

Hmm, you really don't understand that the force is shifted in the horizontal direction, Interesting.

Not the vertical component that's created when you put the truss at an angle, no.

You don't even know what the concept of a vertical component to a force means, do you? Or even how to solve vectors?

I don't really feel inclined to explain it to you. I think the best thing you can do is go outside, find two small trees, tie a rope between them, and see what happens when you put weight on the rope.

1) That's called "leverage."

What made the trusses heavier again? Getting hot?

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:10 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
I think the best thing you can do is go outside, find two small trees, tie a rope between them, and see what happens when you put weight on the rope. You will notice the the trees are pulled toward each other. There is a horizontal component to the force. When you repeat the experiment with a rigid beam you will notice the horizontal component is gone and the trees are no longer pulled toward each other. Good luck.

That is priceless!

A sagging beam is going to stretch in all directions so it is essentially no longer a solid beam, your trees wouldn't go anywhere. If there was extra weight added it would simply cause the trusses to sag more.

How someone fails to realise that is beyond me.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:19 AM
Jason Bermas, basically debunked it all as soon as it came out just just backs up what he says, I dont really trust most of what he says, since he is with alex jones but seems right on 9/11 or at least good at asking the right questions. I come to my own conclusions anyway! correct me if im wrong

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was never trying to prove 54 perimeter columns in a row were compromised. That was the erroneous garbage you came up with.

You claimed "it didn't happen". I ask for proof of that claim. Or did you mean to say "In my humble opinion it didn't happen"?

Who ever said anything about "most columns on the south face"? First it was enough to cause all the columns on those floors to buckle, then it was 54 in a row on a single face compromised, and now you just want to see "most columns on the south face." Again, they were at 1/5 their reserve capacity. Why don't you use some math for once instead of constantly trying to weasel this into a semantic argument instead of a scientific one.

We have been talking about the amount of columns that were compromised on the south wall for a while now. I didn't know you were unaware of that. Anyway, I take you don't know.

Much much more than 1/5, based on my freaking eyeballs attached to my brain. I know what fractions look like. 1/5 is smaller than what you see in photos.

There, both impacted faces. You don't even have the intact columns down to 1/5 on a single freaking face, let alone the entire floors.

At what time was that picture taken exactly? I take it is an image of WTC 1 showing the south face. My estimate would be about an hour before collapse. Do you think it is representative for the moment just before collapse?

There is no tilting without the initiation. There is no initiation with enough buckled columns. Resorting to magic now I see.

But you are unable to provide any evidence that there were not enough columns compromised. You just say there weren't. You did provide the picture above, but you didn't provide the time it was taken, so it is pretty much useless.

Not the vertical component that's created when you put the truss at an angle, no.

You don't even know what the concept of a vertical component to a force means, do you? Or even how to solve vectors?

I understand them yes. But you don't.

1) That's called "leverage."

No that is not called leverage.

What made the trusses heavier again? Getting hot?

The weight you add represents the weight of the floor. You may also first put the weight on the rope and then tie it to the trees if you like. Although I suggest the other way around as that is easier.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:34 AM
This is a precise rendering of the collapse in the north Tower...all floors measurments are done by pixels...they are not just lines placed randomly.
The [color=limegreen]GREEN line represents impact level
The YELLOW line represents point of collapse
The RED line is a slider representing the 14 floors collapsing
The BLUE is the scale of the floors each horiz across the red is a floor

I will not reply ...it is visual...and i know what i am seeing....but always keep focus on the lower right corner which stays visible throughout.

the whole series represents 2.5secs .25secs between each photo...or 8 frames

edit on 063131p://f46Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:18 AM

When I watch the video, I see the collapse initiating (yellow line) approximately 2 of your floors higher. When you take that point as bottom of the top section, you will see the height of the top section (red vertical line) and current point of collapse match perfectly. But even if you take your yellow line as point of collapse, the two lowest floors of the top section could easily have collapsed as you can clearly see those floors are heavily effected by fires.

So pick the bottom of the top section right where the line of smoke is and everything works out fine. Or you could just draw the lines in such a way that it confirms whatever you want them to confirm, your choice.
edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:32 AM

look why don't you just go get a life...because those are very precise points...as the collapse happens smoke is billowing out rising...the yellow is kind of arbitrary...because no one knows the exact point of initiation...but an intelligent person realizes that...what is important is the red scale to the right as you have shown through out this thread you have no idea what your talking about...everyone who looks will know that...EXCEPT YOU.
I will not take any advice from you as have lied over and over and you acuse others of not reading things or having any knowledge.
this is not for you, it is for intelligent people...who actually can see that the supposed intact structure IS NOT impacting the same number of floors that it is falling by...and i am doing many more analysis....so it makes no difference to me what your opinion is as your opinion just shows you are not who you say you are.
I have no time for people like you...but i do have time to show others what is not happening and why Bazants paper is not correct....and also to show That Jon Cole a fellow Engineer deserves the respect that he is due.
He has shown that a lesser explosive of Thermate can cut steel....and it is a good starting point.

edit on 083131p://f42Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM

So you agree the yellow line is arbitrarily chosen and continue that this doesn't matter as the red scale is what is important. But the height of the red scale is determined by the position of the yellow line. Don't you understand that as consequence the height of the red scale is therefor also chosen arbitrarily?

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:08 AM

also no you canot just draw the line to confirm whatever...as they are the floor coming down and they should be impacting the lower section...none of it works...the top is collapsing on itself before impact the lower sections..simple as that the green line is the where the plane crashed...the visible right corner is NOT being crushed by the floors above coming down...do you think that the building in like an aerial and just neatly telescoping into itself....the builing is symetrical...and all columns should be impacting the lower columns as it it coming straight down...the outside columns stagger up three floors you should see very large degree buckling taking place....do we..NO...you go on about lines all you like...but i did themeasurements and in views other than your supposed best view which i used...(which is a lousy view by the way as it does not show the tilt).
And your silly rope analogy wow...the whole bazant report counts on the steel heating to such a degree that they become ELASTIC so how you go hang a bungee between those two trees and go boing boing.
you have been ask questions...and you don't answer then....where are all the aluminum floor pans....whay is the hat truss not the most prominate piece of the structure on top of the debris field...do you answer these with any logic...NO.
You tell people how you read the reports and then in the next post you say you don't understand what they are saying....
Your opinion wavers back and forth and there isn't any consistancy...like i say i will post for people who are not denying ignorance and are willing to see what is going on...so don't worry there will be more lines for you to criticize...but they are not for you.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:09 AM

Its funny how you always see something else than what the videos show. I think you just see what you want to see. The lines are very accurate. The detonations are clearly set off above the impact point.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:13 AM

just look at the number of floors dropped from the top and see if it has impacted the same number of floors that have dropped..and you will see it has not....simple thing really...but nope...don't worry there will be more which gives even a better view than the one chosen by you which i was kind enough to use.
edit on 093131p://f15Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 093131p://f16Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:43 AM

There really is a whole lot of smoke above the yellow line in that image.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:46 AM

Do you think that the number of floors in the top section will always be the same, no matter where the collapse initiated? Or do you think that when the collapse initiates at a higher position, the number of floors in the top section will be less?
edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:48 AM

Thats the whole point, he is showing that the collapse did not initiate at the impact point, but above the impact point. Just look a few frames down. The top is a good distance away from the blue line, where the top was prior to the start of the collapse, but the impact point is unaltered, as the top starts crashing down on the floors ABOVE the impact point.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by plube

I have no time for people like you...but i do have time to show others what is not happening and why Bazants paper is not correct....and also to show That Jon Cole a fellow Engineer deserves the respect that he is due.
He has shown that a lesser explosive of Thermate can cut steel....and it is a good starting point.

Actually, PLB makes some very good points. I don't see how you have shown much of anything with a colored-lines-on-a-video-clip post. I also do not understand why Cole is due anything in that all he did was show that something designed to cut steel, cuts steel. He could have been demonstrating anything that does what it is designed to do. If he shows that hacksaws can cut steel is that deserving of respect and a good starting point?

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:13 AM
Isn't it obvious by now that this thread, like so many 9/11 threads, is a total waste of time .

Until somebody is found or somebody confesses to transporting or installing explosives at the WTC you are better off in the sunshine listening to the birds sing.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
That is priceless!

A sagging beam is going to stretch in all directions so it is essentially no longer a solid beam, your trees wouldn't go anywhere. If there was extra weight added it would simply cause the trusses to sag more.

How someone fails to realise that is beyond me.

I was pressed on time when responding above but yeah, I don't think he really thought out his own metaphor.

I also don't think he had the WTC trusses in mind when he said that. It seems like he's trying to twist everything into petty semantic bickering that has nothing to do with actual reality. He's talking about 54 perimeter columns in a row being compromised on the perimeter, increasing vertical components of forces and reducing the horizontal components somehow increasing horizontal loads on perimeter columns and all kinds of nonsense.

Earlier when presented with the fact that Bazant's model couldn't account for both the mass ejection and the rapid collapse times, and that Bazant was forced to assume 50-95% of all the mass stayed within the footprints, he just chose to believe all the missing mass from the towers must have just rolled or bounced out of the footprints somehow after collapse, rather than think anything was wrong with Bazant's simplistic model. So I can't really be surprised by the sheer amount of faith being displayed here, and I really don't think this is ever going to go anywhere because of that unfortunately.

420