It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 59
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by plube

I am not belittling you I am speaking out what I think. Big difference between you and me: I acknowledged that "almost the speed of sound" was an over exaggeration, corrected it was more like 1/5th of it, and pointed out it didn't matter for the point I was making (which was, something was dropping at high speed). You on the other hand never acknowledged how stupid your paint cans model was. In fact, you still think they have a meaning in relation to how the WTC collapsed. And that gives me very little hope in your claim that you understand anything about the involved physics at all. But we will see.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

As i pointed out yet is LISTEN 1/10th you are off by such a high i will lead you to a paper that that shows completely how Bazant model fails....but it might be to much for you...

please read it .....i will know if you have

The difference between you and i is i look read and understand the just try to say you do.

The interesting thing here is it uses the same video you asked me to use (which i did)...and guess what it backs up my analysis very well thank you...and i had not even read this Report till yesterday.

The Maths are all very well presented and you being so intelligent should be able to get it.

Now when it did my analysis i showed you with an fairly well educated guess....the buildings fall to be Approx 30m/s and the speed of sound is approx 340m/s through the medium of air on the surface of the their calculations put it at pretty close to 26m/s.

So please do not come in and insult my intelligence with your white wash....because a factor of 1/5th is over 60m/s well outside the realm if reality now your number there is representing something closer to terminal velocity of approx 56m/s now to achieve terminal velocity one would need to go through the acceleration phase due to this phase would be approximately say 15secs the buildings fell in around that time did they not....Now to reach these speeds that is falling with only the resistance of as the paper shows...and EVEN BAZANTS paper shows the upper block would encounter....guess what...
RESISTANCE from the lower structure....did this happen......of course not...because the total fall time would have been much greater...and if you use BAZANTS own Numbers and his calculations...the time of fall would approach LISTEN 40seconds or please tell me in your infinite this could be.

But hey i do not claim to be anything other than what i am....sometimes i use different wording than the norm...but that is because terminology differs from country to country and since i do live in different places all over the world i can sometimes say things in different manners....but since i have been living in England for the last 7yrs i tend to speak the way of the English.
edit on 043131p://f04Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

NOTE: before you come back with semantics about terminal velocity they are approximate values...the building did not reach terminal velocity but i need to qualify because i know how you try to argue i said an easy number to follow...towers approx 1000ft so approx 300m approx 10secs fall time so 30m/s so please don't comeback and try to argue semantics......because the building did not even come close to terminal velocity either...I was just being kind to your value of 1/5th.
edit on 043131p://f12Monday by plube because: note

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

Ok you see i feel you are not understanding the physics involved as your assuming the paint can example was to show the collapse....but it was not it was to show the....please follow...the RESISTANCE from the lower was not to show progressive collapse.
but did you fail to understand would seem so....I will appeal to your electronics expertise as i will still credit you with some of what you say you are....(nice try to negate my knowledge)...If you have a current running through a wire...and in this wire we insert a you expect the current to show any resistance after exiting the resistor....or are you saying there is no efect from the resistor on the current?.
so we drop a can fron the height of one can onto the lower structure of the cans below show some resistance to the falling see i can answer it simply.
So no i will not take out that example as it is easy to show the resistance....i dont care if you do it with a stack of bean cans.....the lower structure will resist the falling object and there will be deceleration....tell you what do it with a stack of plates....10 plates high...pick up two plates drop them from two plates high onto the ones below and see what the conservation of momentum you might ask why two plates...simple...20% of the case you could not figure that out.
try it with four.....and a 20 plate see simple physics...but remember do not increase the two plate drop height because only the same number of floors were compromised.
now take the example and reverse it...drop eight plates onto the two plates see the two plates will most likely get smashed...yet not all of the upper plates do....simple yes...relative yes.
So please the only one showing that they don't understand the physics involved is why would i take back an example when the example is relative.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:10 AM
reply to post by plube

I hesitate to get involved in these building collapse questions because they just seem to go round and round for ever without getting anywhere and I have no relevant expertise.

However, even I can see that using a stack of paint cans as a comparison with the WTC Towers, either to indicate progressive collapse or " resistance ", is nonsense. It is a metallic equivalent of Gage's cardboard boxes and I am sure he regrets the day he ever got hold of them.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

Actually he does not regret the example...just because people don't unerstand what he was trying to portray with the example...but never no mind...and as you stated you haven't any relevant expertise in the matter then how can you assume it's relevance in the first place.
the whole point is the resistance during the the collapse...that is the whole relevant point to the questions being asked and the one in which the basis of false reports, based their assumptions on....the resistance is what makes the NIST and The Bazant reports irrelevant in the case of the collapse of the twin towers...the Building showed almost no Resistance to the falling structure of the upper parts....the lower structures should have been able to carry the load to a certain degree...therefore they would show signs of resistance...therefore the time of the entire collapse of not just one....not just two...but in all three STEEL structures..(building 7 being of different construction and using later building techniques than the two towers) fell at near freefall the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for this to occur is to remove all resistance.
So you is all about the physics behind the collapse....the laws of conservation of momentum and energy no longer existed on this day and that is ok in peoples eyes.....
So what is the point in learning physics at all...If you can just abandon the laws of physics when ever they don't fit the you realise how foolish that sounds.
Now as far As Richard Gages the laws of physics do not just randomly change according to what you might want to present on any given day....The example was of a asymetrical side encounters resistance...the other side does not.....DECELERATION....the buildings continued to accelerate.....THAT IS JUST WRONG....the upper section would accelerate...encounter the lower structure...DECELERATE...then please go read the former paper that i posted ...and if you desire to learn a bit more about the physics involved it would help...the only force that should have been acting on those buildings is the objects (upper sections) being accelerated due to gravitity would....this is not fictional....WOULD encounter resistance.....they did not.....Resistance is the factor that is missing in ALL three when people show that by simple does not negate the relevance....
remember people are trying to get the average Joe to understand the laws of physics I assure you Richard Gage does not regret the example....and when people try to say how the example does not have meaning it shows the ignorance of that same individual in understanding what is being put forward...just as it showed in your statment about the resistance.

edit on 053131p://f56Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:18 AM

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-

As i pointed out yet is LISTEN 1/10th you are off by such a high i will lead you to a paper that that shows completely how Bazant model fails....but it might be to much for you...

please read it .....i will know if you have

Just looking at figure 2 is enough to throw this whole "paper" in the trash. The writer doesn't even seem to understand what "acceleration" is. When an object falls 12 seconds in free fall without resistance, its velocity is ~12*10=120m/s. How on earth did he get to 35m/s? In fact, I do know how on earth he got that figure, he divided the fall distance by fall time. FAIL.

Sure I also was not accurate and made an over estimation, but I wasn't making any exact claims, just a wild over estimate to exaggerate my point, but this person wrote a frigging "paper" about it. How can he make such enormous mistakes? How can I take the rest of his work serious after he made such a blunder? If this is the level of physics we can expect from you, then we can already throw your model in the trash too without even reading it. Just to be curious, how did you calculate this 1/10th value? Can you show me you calculations?

EDIT: I took another look at the figure again, as I could not really believe that anyone could make such a mistake, and must admit I misinterpreted it. The x axis does not show seconds but "floors". I do have to point out I assumed seconds because plube claimed their calculations showed a top speed of 26m/s, which was after 12 floors, not seconds. Anyway, the only one who seems to have the physics completely wrong is you plube. Explain how you got to this 30m/s figure.
edit on 24-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by plube
please read it .....i will know if you have

After some more reading I can point you the part which make them lead them to controlled demolition and I disagree with. They assume that when the top section falls, it will encounter resistance of the full load capacity of the lower section. This is completely wrong. Sure Bazant also assumed this, but he was out to prove that collapse would even progress if this was the case.

So why is this wrong? The top section will not fall exactly on the support columns. That is totally unrealistic. Instead it will mostly fall on the floors (meaning the part you walk on), which were never design to carry such a load. Proof of this are videos that show a significant part of the core columns were still standing moments after collapse. They never absorbed the energy equivalent to their load capacity. The models in you paper do not take this into account at all. So for proving the lower floors had to be sabotages it completely fails.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by plube

So you wanted to demonstrate that when you drop one rigid body on another rigid body, the lower body will show resistance and the rigid body you drop will not fall through it. And how does this extremely trivial phenomena that every person is confronted with every second in his life give us any additional insight in the WTC collapse?

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I can understand why you are dancing around and can't explain Jones' comments. Jones postulated that the thin film was the remains of a larger charge that had been quenched as it reached the steel. Had the steel melted on one side, the thermo-paint would have ignited and melted the steel. How is it still there?

What happens when the thermate explodes like in the OP video instead of burning all the way through as an incendiary only? There are all kinds of possibilities, just no proof since there has been no investigation into that at all.

I see you are still avoiding explanation. What happens when the paint-on thermite explodes? Aside from the fact that it won't even burn completely, much less explode, why would an explosive version leave a thin layer on a target beam any more than the deflagrative version? How do you propose that a layer of red paint between the explosion and the target would survive while the target beam was destroyed?

Jones' fantasy breaks down at many levels when the details must be explained. Here is your chance to show your technical skills and explain some of the details instead of merely handwaving and deflecting. Defend Jones paper or concede that he did not prove thermite.
edit on 1/24/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

well there you go did not even bother to read what i had written also...a building approx 300m high falls in 10secs that is 30m/ you have no idea what you are talking about do does it fail...when the building are actually a little more than 300m buzz the numbers are correct.....once again you have shown you have not a clue what your talking about....if you actually teach ....i feel sorry for the people your teaching.


V=distance/time shall we continue.......V=300m/10s....V=30m/s

V=D/T or instantaneuos velocity is measured as v=d(x)/d(t)

so that is exactly how velocity is calculated is is the displacement/over time. really do not have a clue do you.....please do not ever come and check my work again...once again you have shown you do not have a clue.

So to the people who are actually believing what PLB states I think you might want to be careful...the peper stands just fine.....I now know for an absolute fact you are not who you say you are...thanks for clarifying your ignorance.

Shall i give the definaition of is not an insult....Ignorance=one whom lacks knowledge.

now please tell me again how velocity is calculated because i would really like to know how you see it.

edit on 013131p://f08Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 013131p://f14Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

Simple really and it is even stated in Bazants paper...and it is resistance that the lower structure imparts on the falling body....and like a say ...when you use Bazants formula...guess what.....the falling body have seen by your remarks you have not a clue what you talk about.....should i proceed to go through the thread and highlight allllll of your errors.....just like saying that person does not know how to calculate rediculous can you possibly get.....his numbers are more accurate than my simple approximations yet even when i simplify for still don't get see, the falling body analogy is absolutely appropriate in showing how the towers DID NOT fall.
Once again your Ignorance shows....when people discuss things with you i think you just wash by what gets pointed out for your own belief system....DECELERATION.....that is the key here....the event does not lie my i have showed you...and many others...and the papers and the reports.....there wasn't any deceleration in the please.....don't bother trying to change the evenets...the collapses are well documented and very easily calculated...It is not difficult to show there wasn't any decleration.....Are you really going to continue to be blind....As i have asked before...why on this earth would someone who says they are intelligent continue to want to be blind to the FACTS.
Let me ask you this...when it does...get shown...which it will...that Bazants progressive collapse paper does not apply in the case of the towers collapse...and building 7's what are you going to do.....
So you my friend can live in your pure and utter ignorance....but thankfully many others are please go learn about Velocity.. V=D/T ....and also learn about the laws of conservation and momentum as they all apply in this...and did you bother in your ...abilities as an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER bother to address the question of resistance put to you.
you have failed to understand any of the reports you read...and you still are not able to comprehend the factors involved in Bazants own i says progressive collapse does not work as a theory...NO.
Does it explain the falls of these three buildings.....ABSOLUTELY NOT....It fails, it does not explain how the building continually accelerate through time......simple really.

edit on 013131p://f32Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by plube

If you can't even get the physics at this fundamental level right, you are not qualified to make any kind of judgment about anything that involves physics. This is the kind of physics you learn in junior high school. Do you understand what a derivative is? Do you understand that the derivative is the rate of change over an infinitely small interval? So why do you take 12 seconds as interval?

Anyway, I am not going to teach you fundamental maths/physics, but I will give you the answer. The correct formula to calculate the velocity when the fall distance is known is v=sqrt(2g/\x), resulting in a maximal velocity of sqrt(2*10*400)=90m/s for a free fall from 400 meter. I hope you can put your ego aside and actually learn something.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

EDIT: I took another look at the figure again, as I could not really believe that anyone could make such a mistake, and must admit I misinterpreted it. The x axis does not show seconds but "floors". I do have to point out I assumed seconds because plube claimed their calculations showed a top speed of 26m/s, which was after 12 floors, not seconds. Anyway, the only one who seems to have the physics completely wrong is you plube. Explain how you got to this 30m/s figure.

I have shown you over and over....and i showed you again...i know what i am talking about...i gave you a quick estimate did i the papers calculations came to 26m/ in reply i had IMMEDIATELY gave you a figure of the calculation and it was guess 30m/s now is that close.

now you in your infinate wisdom said the the buildings were approaching the speed on GET THIS sound.

Speed of sound is ..APPROX 340m/s through air at ground stated...OH i was of by a 1/5th....

so lets do this cause it is going to show you how wrong you are.

340/5 which leaves us at 68m/s so i was bieing kind to you and narrowed it down to 60m/s and not only that i was kind enough to relate that to terminal velocity due to accelration by gravity....(how nice of me).
which is approx 56/s

but i then showed you that your calculation should be about 1/10th and not a fifth which is 340/10 which translate to 34m/s so lets do the same and be a bit generous here...30m/s.

so you see you try to make out i am wrong...but the numbers are easy to tis took me...listen here....less than 30s to write out for you....

but just for your benifit i will do the velocity of the tower fall again.....GET IT.....

towers.....aprox 300m....which is the displacement
time....approx 10s ...which is the time took for them to fall.

now remember i am making the numbers simple...but they are close.


so here we have V=300/10
suprising it comes to 30m/s

So who would your prefer to have grade your papers 60m/s your 1/5th
or mine of 30m/s my 1/10th

now lets use the papers numbers.....26m/s and you tell me who does know what they are talking about here.

would you like to to show exact times of all the footage.....because i can come pretty damn close...just as many others have.....

you see i have a memory and i know what i say and i also pay attention to what others say.....and you jump right in trying to say the papers was wrong but it was not.....i am not saying Bazants paper is wrong...but in the case of progressive collapse in these completely fails.....simple as that.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

so are you saying that the buildings reach a velocity of almost twice that as terminal velocity....hmmm interesting.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

the answer to your question of 12 seconds is the time from start of collapse to end of't try to throw an marker for instantaneous velocity to try to make yourself sound better know why....because that is not what the 12 seconds is about....yes we could calculate the instantaneous velocity from the onset to when the upper floors impact the first floor ....but that is not relative to the velocity of the overall collapse...once angain you try with semantics....i have shown your error quite well...and you try to pull in some erroneous number..and try to tell me i don't pathetic.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

also from your wonderful numbers.....LMAO your saying the buildings should have fell in 4.4seconds due to the accelration by gravity....keep on digging my keeps getting so much think you better look at the numbers your generating...then i was taught in physics....think...does that make sense.

edit on 023131p://f06Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

NUFF have shown your ability to think very well
edit on 023131p://f07Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by plube

The impact velocity of the debris is exactly what we were talking about. That has nothing to do with semantics, it has to do with understanding what we are discussing. Anyway, I don't think you will accept anything I say to you. I can only hope you try to teach yourself in order to expand your understanding, it would be shame if you didn't. But in the end it is your own choice.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by -PLB-

understand quite clearly....but you do not....and maybe i should say the same to you....maybe one day you will ackowledge the the building continues down under constant acceleration....
Now you say i have been wrong....but you know what...the only person wrong is yourself...because your doing the same thing with calculations by isolating the calculation and not applying to the whole observed.
Did you just flippantly come back and say it was wrong...because you did not want to read it...because the paer is not wrong...and it suprisingly says just what i have been saying....Bazants model does not fit the go and read the discussion at the end of the paper....
Now you said your an Electrical Engineer and you have a Masters...yet do you answers do not.
i had asked you several...which you chose not to your velocity.....please tell that calculation in a perfect world where we all live in a vaccum I suspect it is....would air resistance be a big player in the collapse of the first two floors....nope.
I am not here to discredit you ....but please if you resort to such tactics i will continue to show your errors....
so answer me this.....Are you saying that if we drop 10kg of the hieght of 400m it is going to hit the ground in 4.4secs.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:34 PM
just as one more thing....this is calculated in a vacumm (no air resistance) now according to this low and behold an object being accelerated due to gravity after 8sec reaches only 313m interesting....yet i am to believe your calculation of it traveling 400m in 4.4 seconds....please .....
It would seem that you are forgetting simple physics to baffle people with crud.
not going to happen....

Here is a table of calculated acceleration (meters per second squared), velocity (meters per second), and displacement (meters) at 1 second intervals.

Time = 0, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 0.0, Distance = 0.0

Time = 1, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 9.8, Distance = 4.9

Time = 2, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 19.6, Distance = 19.6

Time = 3, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 29.4, Distance = 44.1

Time = 4, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 39.2, Distance = 78.4

Time = 5, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 49.0, Distance = 122.5

Time = 6, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 58.8, Distance = 176.4

Time = 7, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 68.6, Distance = 240.1

Time = 8, Accel = 9.8, Velocity = 78.4, Distance = 313.6

Notice that the acceleration is a constant, the velocity increases linearly, and the location increases quadratically.

The remarkable observation that all free falling objects fall at the same rate was first proposed by Galileo, nearly 400 years ago. Galileo conducted experiments using a ball on an inclined plane to determine the relationship between the time and distance traveled. He found that the distance depended on the square of the time and that the velocity increased as the ball moved down the incline. The relationship was the same regardless of the mass of the ball used in the experiment. The story that Galileo demonstrated his findings by dropping two cannon balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa is just a legend. However, if the experiment had been attempted, he would have observed that one ball hit before the other! Falling cannon balls are not actually free falling - they are subject to air resistance and would fall at different terminal velocities.

now this is on NASA'S site for i did this on purpose to show people how far off the mark you please explain your numbers and how you get to the point that in 4.4 sec due to gravity you have managed to achieve 90m/s.

the physics is the if i solve through the use of derivitives are you saying these values are going to grossly change.....shame.

amazing how it would change,,,now this is in a vacuum and the numbers would be even larger taking into account air you go and over complicate all you want.....but the physics does not change....and if you say it does well you will need help.

The physics of the acceleration of the upper block mass being accelerated due to gravity is the easy bit...the complicated bit is how the resistance of the lower structure affects the falling mass.

You have shown once again unrealistic numbers that have no bearing on the questions at i refuse to go down your path of showing how i could use calculus to achieve the numbers...because for one thing...they would still come out approximately to the observed data....and if they do not...then i would have to recheck my work as it would say to me i have done something very wrong here....freefalling body traveling 90m/s after 4.4secs...come on.
edit on 043131p://f37Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by plube

Plube, your understanding of the underlying physics is extremely lacking. I will highlight one of your questions, maybe it makes you realize it. You ask "Are you saying that if we drop 10kg of the hieght of 400m it is going to hit the ground in 4.4secs"

No of course not.
After 1 second, the mass will have a velocity of about 10m/s, and has traveled a distance of about 5m.
After 2 seconds, the mass will have a velocity of about 20m/s and has traveled a distance of about 20m.
After 3 seconds, the mass will have a velocity of about 30m/s and has traveled a distance of about 45m.

See, after 3 seconds the speed is already 30m/s, but it has only traveled a distance of about 45 meter, and not a distance of 3sx30m/s=90m. It will take about 9 seconds for the mass to reach the ground, at that moment it has a velocity of about 90m/s. It has not traveled 9x90=810 meter, but is has traveled 400 meter. Do you understand now that your 30m/s is totally different from the impact velocity of the debris?

Anyway, this is as far as I will go, as like I said, I don't think you will listen to me. You will have to study it yourself to understand it. So good luck with that, I hope you succeed.

new topics

top topics

<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in