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: 46
420
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your analysis makes no sense. Why would there be a horizontal component at all when the trusses are still stiff? There would only be a vertical component. A horizontal component only exists when the trusses become soft and start sagging.

I am sorry but it seems I just can't explain this concept. I am not a physics teacher and teaching is not my specialty. If I can't get this point across so be it.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your analysis makes no sense. Why would there be a horizontal component at all when the trusses are still stiff? There would only be a vertical component. A horizontal component only exists when the trusses become soft and start sagging.

I am sorry but it seems I just can't explain this concept. I am not a physics teacher and teaching is not my specialty. If I can't get this point across so be it.


All you are showing is what I already knew, that you actually have no idea how to do vector math and you were just bluffing. What you should apologize for is lying when you said you knew what you were talking about, and that I didn't, and know you've made it plain as day that all real vectors do is confuse the hell out of you.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I exactly pointed out what you did wrong. You drew a horizontal component in the first image. There is no horizontal component (of any meaning) when the trusses are stiff. There is just gravity pulling them down. I just can't explain it any better.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


May I be of some assistance? I tried to resize the picture to fit here but I think I got enough of the connection in.



Those are the free-body, shear and moment diagrams you are having a problem explaining. Sorry bsbray11, PLB is correct about a horizontal force being added in this situation.

But, Anok is correct in that there are only 5 deformations known in physics.

1. Elastic deformation
2. Plastic deformation
3. Fatigue
4. Compressive failure
5. Fracture

Sagging trusses in a fire would fall into either elastic (highly doubtful given the circumstances) or plastic deformation. Since plastic deformation is probably occuring how are deformed trusses pulling in on non-deformed much stronger box columns?

If the claim is that elastic deformation was occuring, then I would have to see proof that once the trusses where not heated anymore they returned to their original shape and strength. Do we have that proof? Wasn't the whole steel pile combed over according to our resident deniers here? (Although it's been pointed out before that there was a "scope and dump" scenario going on...even admitted to by the white house).

So, IMO, the sagging truss theory has many flaws. What type of deformation is the claim and what is the proof behind that claim?


edit on 12-1-2011 by Nutter because: Resize photo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


It seems to me that the columns were also heated and weakened. Whether the horizontal force as result of sagging was enough to make columns bow as much inward as was observed is a bit out of my league to determine, so can't comment on that. One other theory I read is that after the trusses were deformed and started cooling down again as fires became less intense, they contracted and started pulling even more. That would require a plastic deformation.

ps, thanks for the image, I think that should make it clear for everyone.
edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


You're right I should have said plastic, not elastic. Trusses sagging from heat would not return to their original shape...


Elastic/Plastic Deformation

When a sufficient load is applied to a metal or other structural material, it will cause the material to change shape. This change in shape is called deformation. A temporary shape change that is self-reversing after the force is removed, so that the object returns to its original shape, is called elastic deformation. In other words, elastic deformation is a change in shape of a material at low stress that is recoverable after the stress is removed. This type of deformation involves stretching of the bonds, but the atoms do not slip past each other.

When the stress is sufficient to permanently deform the metal, it is called plastic deformation.

www.ndt-ed.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Nutter
 


It seems to me that the columns were also heated and weakened. Whether the horizontal force as result of sagging was enough to make columns bow as much inward as was observed is a bit out of my league to determine, so can't comment on that. One other theory I read is that after the trusses were deformed and started cooling down again as fires became less intense, they contracted and started pulling even more. That would require a plastic deformation.
edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Nope, that would be elastic deformation.

There is NO horizontal force from sagging trusses, already explained.

If the trusses tried to contract, why would that force be stronger than the beams themselves, and why would they contract to a size smaller than they started as?

(You should really be asking yourself these questions before you go around acting like you know what you're talking about.)
edit on 1/12/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKNope, that would be elastic deformation.


No, the point is that the trusses do not return to their original shape.


There is NO horizontal force from sagging trusses, already explained.


Lets just disagree then. To me the free body diagrams nutter drew make perfect sense. The ones of bsbray11 don't.


If the trusses tried to contract, why would that force be stronger than the beams themselves, and why would they contract to a size smaller than they started as?


Because they are deformed. I don't know the forces, I read this in an article.


(You should really be asking yourself these questions before you go around acting like you know what you're talking about.)
edit on 1/12/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Thanks for the advice, even though I was already following it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


It seems to me that the columns were also heated and weakened.


It seems?


Care to explain what heated the columns enough in “one hour” to weaken the steel?

Science has proved it was not office fires and jet fule.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Lets just disagree then. To me the free body diagrams nutter drew make perfect sense. The ones of bsbray11 don't.


The free body diagram does not account for the SAGGING. The trusses are no longer rigid, and do not maintain the same horizontal forces. The diagram was not related to our discussion, but the one you were having with bsbray.


Because they are deformed. I don't know the forces, I read this in an article.


Then this is just more proof you are happy to accept 'something you read' because it fits what you want to believe.
That is our difference, I don't just read things and accept, or reject, them based on my feelings.

Deformation is not going to cause steel to compress in size. Materials will expand but can only return to their original size when cooled. Lots of mechanical devises would fail if that wasn't a fact.


Thanks for the advice, even though I was already following it.


Obviously not, as has already been proven, but just like every other detail you probably didn't notice. When you try to use things that you read somewhere, but don't understand, then you are not following my advice, are you? You are simply being biased and will use ANYTHING you think will keep your argument going. You are following the exact same pattern that all the other resident debunkers followed, what was your old user name(s)?
edit on 1/13/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Just to show you i can be somewhat human...this photo i have imposed the intact structure over top see i have taken 2 floors off the bottom which would be the same effect as taking in the margin of error you seem fixated on even though it is quite visibe.
you can see at this point how far it should have impacted the lower structure...

When the structure failure intiates it still would need to fall that elusive 3m..or one floor to meet Bazants requirments.

now another thing is if your the man you say you are...should without any trouble be able to figure out the the velocity of the structure as you will see there is an increase in the amount of floors it is falling every 8 frames.
Also another question arises,Why is it accelerating the whole time...because when it impacts the lower section it should decelerate when it's fall is being resisted by the lower structure.




edit on 023131p://f41Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


What kind of heat in one hour would weaken all four corners and the middle core columns to break simultaneously? Fact is, according to firemen, the airplane fuel burned just a few minutes after impact. Remember, the WTC steel was tested to withstand 2200 degree heat for many hours, jet fuel tempters burns 1500?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The free body diagram does not account for the SAGGING. The trusses are no longer rigid, and do not maintain the same horizontal forces. The diagram was not related to our discussion, but the one you were having with bsbray.


I can't remember having a discussion with you. From what I read here it seems to me you agree that sagging of the trusses results in a horizontal component to the force on the perimeter columns? If so I am not sure what you are disagreeing to. If not, lets just disagree.



Then this is just more proof you are happy to accept 'something you read' because it fits what you want to believe.
That is our difference, I don't just read things and accept, or reject, them based on my feelings.


Its more because it came from a group of engineers that did all kind of experiments that made me take the theory serious. People who could actually back up what they say with experimental data. Besides, I only proposed it as a possible explanation, not the absolute truth.



Deformation is not going to cause steel to compress in size. Materials will expand but can only return to their original size when cooled. Lots of mechanical devises would fail if that wasn't a fact.


The trusses were deformed in the shape of a parabola. When you bent a piece of metal in the shape of a parabola the total width becomes shorter.


Obviously not, as has already been proven, but just like every other detail you probably didn't notice. When you try to use things that you read somewhere, but don't understand, then you are not following my advice, are you? You are simply being biased and will use ANYTHING you think will keep your argument going. You are following the exact same pattern that all the other resident debunkers followed, what was your old user name(s)?


I am explaining it to you, as you are the one who don't understand it. You are projecting your own shortcomings on me. As for me keeping the argument going, so far I am the only person who proposed an explanation at all for the observed bowing. Why don't you come with one?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


And you see it almost perfectly matches the point it is currently collapsing. My whole point has been that you simply can not see what happened to the upper 12-13 floors, as they are obscured. I hope we can agree to that. Of course you may believe the top section collapsed right in the beginning, its just there is no evidence for that. I personally think the top section did get damaged before it hit the ground, as I explained before. So the idealized crush up crush down model may not represent the events that happened accurately. Although that was never the intent of the model to begin with.

Assuming your post was addressed to me, determining the velocity would not be that hard indeed. With the slowing down you raise up a good point. I would say the reason you do not see a slowdown is because it is so minor you just can't see it. A bit like when a truck hits a car, you don't really see the truck slow down. And maybe there are some elastic deformations doing on.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You can see where the top is...you know what the structure is...you know what the perieter columns are made of you can see the intact lower structure...you can see how far into the lower structure the floors are.

now i will asked you to back this comment up with a photo.


The trusses were deformed in the shape of a parabola. When you bent a piece of metal in the shape of a parabola the total width becomes shorter


I want to see this Truss

don't give us this obsured crud...because as you say if you believe the NIST report they use the same techniques to publish their paper. And are you also saying that any Engineer who does not agree with the nist or Bazant reports are not qualified. (rubbish).

all points are measured...now once again...for the Bazant paper to be valid...CRUSH UP DOES NOT OCCUR until the CRUSH DOWN phase has been completed...now just as Anok has so kindly shown you a top down collapse...the building floor is pulled from beneath the upper section...the upper section falls....impacts the lower section INTACT...it decelerates...then proceeds INTACT downward through the resisting lower structure.

I am not sure why you get pleasure in being so blind...and why you feel anyone one of us is not qualified.

you still have not answered once why you lied about who you are...you have said your and Engineers...I have shown you have said you have a masters...you have said you Know your maths...yet you have been shown to be completely out of touch with what you say.

So please show you know what your talking about in some possible way so people will even want to hear what you have to say.
edit on 063131p://f00Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


Assuming your post was addressed to me, determining the velocity would not be that hard indeed. With the slowing down you raise up a good point. I would say the reason you do not see a slowdown is because it is so minor you just can't see it. A bit like when a truck hits a car, you don't really see the truck slow down. And maybe there are some elastic deformations doing on.


you say it is about data...well the data that can be taken from the scale would show if there was slowing or not....that is the point of data is it not....so how about you take your mathematical abilities..apply it to the data being presented...and show us the way the builing has slowed down during this phase. Because it is very important to Bazants THEORY crush down occuring.

now about the plastic and elastic deformation....most of the deformation from looking at the the debris we can only go by observation ...knowing if the steel became Elastic we would need to do testing on the steel because as it cools it will return to original shape....now as for being plastic...which we can observe the deformation in many of the beams (i would like to see the TRUSSES). we do not know if they became plastic from heat as once again testing and data would be required which...hmmm once again on a slow boat to China.

now you are putting a lot of faith into reports that are assumed data...theoretical...but your an intelligent person...where does your deductive reasoning ever come into play.

your not a physic's teacher you say...but your an Engineer...and you have a masters..now i would tend to believe a physicist over a physics teacher...so will you please tell us what your TRUE background is to help us believe what you say...then we know somewhat where we stand.

because it makes never no mind to you what anyone else's background is...unless they believe in the NIST report they obviously cannot be Engineers.

because the people in NIST use data (theoretical) they must know exactly what their talking about.

Just like NAT GEO and PM magazine showed how thermite could not cut steel...YET a ENGINEER..not an explosives expert was able to show it can be done....but i bet you still believe that it can't be done.

And of course you cannot believe Jon Cole cause he does not believe the NIST report how could he possibly know what he is talking about...yep case closed in your eyes...the NIST report is sacred cause they used data but Jon Cole just used intelligence to show these up with household products....LOL


edit on 063131p://f38Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

now i set that last statment up for you to go look closely...and if your as observant as you think you are...you will notice...after the first 8frames it decelerates...but then what is very interesting....it Accelerates continuously as it should be impacting the lower structure...the only way for something like that to occur would be that all resistance has been removed...now how could than be....i will leave you to explain that to us.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
I want to see this Truss


You can't see what is going on inside. The sagging trusses is a theory to explain why the perimeter column bowed inward. So far the only theory I have heard of.


don't give us this obsured crud...because as you say if you believe the NIST report they use the same techniques to publish their paper. And are you also saying that any Engineer who does not agree with the nist or Bazant reports are not qualified. (rubbish).


Where do I say that any engineer who does not agree with the NIST or Bazant reports are not qualified? Why are you making up this nonsense?


all points are measured...now once again...for the Bazant paper to be valid...CRUSH UP DOES NOT OCCUR until the CRUSH DOWN phase has been completed...now just as Anok has so kindly shown you a top down collapse...the building floor is pulled from beneath the upper section...the upper section falls....impacts the lower section INTACT...it decelerates...then proceeds INTACT downward through the resisting lower structure.


I will repeat it again, Bazants model does not model the actual events. It models the most optimistic situation for progressive collapse not to occur. Meaning that if his model predicts collapse, any model that is more detailed will also predict collapse. The model is to prove there was enough energy in the most optimistic case (optimized for collapse not to occur).


I am not sure why you get pleasure in being so blind...and why you feel anyone one of us is not qualified.

you still have not answered once why you lied about who you are...you have said your and Engineers...I have shown you have said you have a masters...you have said you Know your maths...yet you have been shown to be completely out of touch with what you say.


Can you please stop with this slander? I have lied nowhere about who I am.


So please show you know what your talking about in some possible way so people will even want to hear what you have to say.


I am trying, but somehow the message doesn't come across. The image nutter posted also does not seem to help. I have totally no idea how to make it more clear.
edit on 13-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I already told that I am an electrical engineer. Your post is full of straw men arguments, and doesn't really have a point.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
well lets see what sort of analysis of that same vid that i broke down for you has to say...i just found this...but it does state just what i was trying to show to you...the resistance of the lower structure was removed.



But hey what do i know...or anyone else for that matter....all the other engineers who do not agree with the NIST report or the Bazants bogus model..you see the more you tend to try to show things the more that others will see the truth....You see no matter what gets presented to you ,you will not accept it....but you are helping to open doors for others to se the truth ....and i have no need to slander you....you made the remarks yourself.....did not say you had a masters? i will go back and get the stuff you have said....because you did not even remember talking to me about it...but i went back to over six months ago when we had discussions in other threads on this subject...you see i am not like you...i do remember when i talk to people...because i do value what others say. I don't just dismiss them.

oh yes but your not a physics teacher but you sure do try to baffle people with your knowledge of the subject..and the usual tactics get used again where a person just says it is strawman arguments....well i am afraid it is not....they are arguments based on what you say.

Like i say as an Electrical engineer is it ok the make errors by a factor of ten.....or five...when you are deciding what gage wire would be used to carry 30amps of current.

You know i am coming back to the senario where you stated the buildings were falling aproaching the speed of sound.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join