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: 61
420
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


If we say that there is a direct axial column to column impact as you state....then the same occurance would have to be acting upon the core also...which inturn would slow the whole process of the upper bloock imparting a severe impact onto the floor below the acceleration would be slower would you not agree.

Also if you look at the images above and you look at the 1.5 sec mark following down the corners is that what we are visually seeing occur....as they are visible....as the collapse progresses do we see the floors of 98 99 and 100 impacting the Lowers structure....i am pretty sure i do not at the corner is still visible.



this is after 2.5s and do we see the floors that should be impacting the lower structure....tell me what you see?

now we look at the point of where the floors have fell one floor...



we see a slight tilt so would there truely be an axial impact on all columns around the perimeter?

I personally would think not....so buckling would only apply to the west side of the structure would it not?

It is a great idea...and fits great with things i have said...if the core fails from the bottom up removing all resistance...then the whole structure starts in a rapid descent downward.

also people say that the floors just fail...but in the tower... all things are not equal are they....you have north and south where floor spans were approx 65 ft...and then we have east and west where floor spans were approx half that distance...which always seems to get left out...so expansion and contraction values are not the same let alone the ability to sag....also the fires were not evenly spread so one would suspect failure in one area much greater than in another area of the structure....now as for the impacts from the aircraft we have damage ...but is it global...by no means, the acceleration of the collapse is basically saying resistance from the lower structure is gone...saying all that...i appreciate what your saying as it does make sense...but does it hold true...in my opinion i would say not......what would you say?.
edit on 023131p://f07Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)[/editby

I agree that it is an odd assumption as it is most likely senario to stop a collapse....unless the core is negated....as the core caries 60% of the load while the rest of the structure carries 40%.

I find it interesting how the core of the structure just becomes invisible.....don't you?
edit on 023131p://f13Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)
extra DIV




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

If we say that there is a direct axial column to column impact as you state



No one is saying that in fact happened. Neither I nor Bazant.

This is the assumption he takes in his BZ paper that is the best case for collapse arrest.

My question to you is not whether or not you believe this in fact happened, nor what the effects would be.

I'm asking a simpler question: Is this assumption the correct limiting case or not?


what would you say?.


That my gibberish translator is broken and can't make heads or tails of what you're saying in your post.

Try using proper sentence and paragraph structure and I can engage. PLB is a saint for even bothering with you.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


let me put it this way.....the Observed of what occured does not suppoort it...is it the best case against collapse....it would be the case for resisting the collapse but since you do not want to hear the details...simple answer....the whole collapse should have been arrested....if the upper block shifted to the side due to tilt and was not a direct axial column to column...as if you look a the Bazant paper that is what they are stating....Now i am glad you think PLB is a saint....but he has made error after error....and i have seen your replies get ripped to shreds and your trying to catch me out with a simple statement....they are not stating at all a direct column to column collapse....they are stating failures in certain columns and in certain areas that all of a suddenly leads to a complete failure of at least one entire floor to allow enough force from the upper block to impart a force on the next floor down to start a global collapse....so will i put into words for you a situation that does not exist....not a chance....take your leading question somewhere else to try to fool somebody else.
edit on 023131p://f30Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



edit on 023131p://f32Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Also just to point out the section you quoted was already shown to be out by a factor of ten....so the releavance of the section you want me to anser on is already MUTE is that clear enough for you.....why on this earth would i comment on a piece of work that is already shown to be false....you better go back and read.
edit on 023131p://f36Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

the Observed of what occured does not suppoort it


Nobody on this side says it does.


is it the best case against collapse....it would be the case for resisting the collapse


Good.


but since you do not want to hear the details...simple answer....the whole collapse should have been arrested


IOW, even though the best case scenario didn't happen - meaning that everything else is a worse case for arrest - you still believe it should have arrested. Your statements are at odds.


if the upper block shifted to the side due to tilt and was not a direct axial column to column.


We agree that this in fact happened.


as if you look a the Bazant paper that is what they are stating


Lie. he is using this hypothetical scenario as a best case for arrest. You agree.


they are not stating at all a direct column to column collapse....they are stating failures in certain columns and in certain areas that all of a suddenly leads to a complete failure of at least one entire floor to allow enough force from the upper block to impart a force on the next floor down to start a global collapse


Poorly worded, but ok, I get your drift.


take your leading question somewhere else to try to fool somebody else.[


I'm leading you to water, but I can't make you drink.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Also just to point out the section you quoted was already shown to be out by a factor of ten....so the releavance of the section you want me to anser on is already MUTE is that clear enough for you



I think you mean MOOT.

Bazant admitted in the original that he didn't have the correct info on the columns, since it was only a couple days after the event.

Your "refutation" source corrected his poor info but guess what?

It still doesn't arrest.

But go ahead and stick your head in the sand.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Hey Plube,

Simple question for you.

Why haven't you written a discussion to any of the jounrals that Dr. Bazant's work appears in?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


so i see you too believe the Bazant report...so tell me who has their head in the sand....and yes it does arrest....as it loses the energy to proceed with the continued collapse.....therefore it is arrested....so if you come in just to throw BS which is what it seems is the tactic then you will be confronted with the truth....and you go ohhhh then you'll disappear for a bit ....and come back and just jump in randomly....now tell me whom has their head in the sand.....please tell me your background....you see your coming in an just attacking....which well is very poor tactics.....show me info....or are you just going to do the same as others and not base your coments on knowledge....oh yes semantics and pick on a spelling right after all the replies....have you done any work on proving your side of the arguement or is this going to be a cut and paste session on your behalf.....hmmmmm....you see your comments are noted and when you have something of value to add....go ahead.

NOTE: is it the best case against collapse....it would be the case for resisting the collapse but since you do not want to hear the details...that is not an agreement...so please do not going trying to use my words against me....as it will backfire.....as the collapse was not Resisted....just because you don't understand what i have said.


edit on 053131p://f29Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 053131p://f30Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The simple thing is how do you know i have not....and is this your way to jump on the band wagon....you feeling pretty confident....you have been totally shown how you fail to use logic by ANOK and BSBRAY ....so is it time for three of you too try and come at me...well please by all means go ahead....I will keep on going at the Bazant paper and i don't worry my work willl speak for itself....what have you done? you see i will not copy and paste your words...i will not engage in tit for tat....there is not any point and if you say you are something you are not then i will point it out.....now your the supposed fire expert....but you had just copy and pasted a bunch of nice articles but many of which do not pertain to this case.....but please.....feel free to keep posting.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
you see i have stated where i went to school i have worked all over the world...and i continue to do so....terminology changes from all over and if you read the papers you will realize how terminology differs and I now live in England and have had to adjust to differnet terms in this country so if my spelling is a bit off...No big deal to me as if you would like to attend a spelling forum i am sure you can find one....will i sit here and pick out gramarical and spelling errors of others...nope...that is foolish as the issue here is how the Three STEEL structures on a single given day Did not suffer progressive collapse due to fires of varying degrees and varying structures.....two of which were hit by planes and and one which was not...now if you would like to discuss these matters at hand then by all means do so...if not....then why not go troll somewhere else.
You see the whole topic here as well presented by BSRAY was how a single man...Jon Cole was able to show what a National giant such as Nat Geo could not.....but do any one of you go and give the man credit for his hard work...nope...not one....
the question is not really whether it brought down the towers...the issue is Nat Geo said it would not cut STEEL now the semantics are method of operation...the devices needed ..the way in which to succeed in it practical uses in the case of the towers...well really it is just opening the door to further investigation...just as there are so many anomalies in how the towers fell which also means that there should be further investigations......
but yet people who want to understand what really happened on the day because the OS is so full of holes you could forever fill it with the sand you got your heads buried in and never fill the void.
sorry but your games will not work....At least PLB has the nerve to be persistant with some valid points....but are they always correct...no.
Are mine always correct...no
but i can say that the people who want the truth are more willing to say who they are and suffer the consequence of ridicule by people who are blind to what has really been perpetrated against them...so for me i will keep on working on getting answers.....so for the people who just believe in the OS why are you here....what do you have to worry about if we are just a bunch of people that are off our rockers.
You go ahead and believe in two masterpieces of pure Crud NIST/BAZANT papers that only led to the closure of any other roads to be taken by false statements and bogus assumptions.....
I am happy you all believe in those reports...good for you all....the thing that i do not understand is why would it matter to you if i don't....and .....as for submitting a paper for peer review....no worries there.....already being done.....but there is a thing that takes time....it is called collaboration...which is what i am doing.....so when it is done you will get your turn at reviewing it.
now when the rest of you start to actually do some work of your own....actually write in your own words...and go beyond a straight copy and paste without putting yourselves on the line....we might have things to discuss.....
Like i say interesting how it is easy for you to condemn what is being presented without actually doing any work yourselves....why not start showing how Bazants paper and the NIST report actually work as models that reflect what occured on the day...i have asked many times for proof of how it actually relates to the observed....and guess what not once have any of you shown it.....not once......do you know why....because you can't ...the models do not fit the empirical data......when it is shown there was no resistance being exerted by the lower structure....what do you all say.....NOTHING.....i show that the building is undergoing continuous acceleration...what do any of you show to the contrary......NOTHING.
i say that the bazant model in order to work show a a cycle of acceleration and deceleration....and show that there isn't a deviation from acceleration what have any of you produced....NOTHING......
I show the NIST model shows building seven having major deformation compared to the Observed.....what do any of you come back with...NOTHING.
I show how crush up cannot occur until crushdown has been completed according to Bazants own paper...and what do any of you come up with......NOTHING.
So maybe when you start to come up with something.....things will change....people ask for answers all the time from the believers in the OS...and what do you come up with ....NOTHING.


edit on 063131p://f18Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


not being able to make sense of his post?
The fault dear Brutus lies in your self not someone else.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

now tell me whom has their head in the sand




You do.

Truthers have already refuted Szamboti's paper here:

the911forum.freeforums.org...



They found jots in Tony's own data. he was just too dumb to see it.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


wow.calling people dumb are we....now that because if i disagree with someone does that make them dumb...nope...is Bazant dumb no...very intelligent...does his model apply to the collapse imo no....are there errors yes...will i make errors..of course....do i still think the towers and building 7 came to some sort of natural demise....not from what i understand and not from what i have seen....now calling people dumb...do you yourself even have the ability to generate the data sets....and if you do...please do so and be brave enough to submit them....will i reply on the link...yes i will...but i will take the time to look at his mtehod...and see if the data is far outside the realm of a smooth acceleration....but just at a quick glance...they are not exceptionally far off from tony's but we will look....if you want some flippant imediate reply...doesn't work that way.
Just as i said do you make your own nope....yet you can sit their and call people dumb....interesting tactics...do i still think the NIST/BAzant reoprts are full of holes...yes...did you come back with documentation..none...you came back with a simple link to another forurm....Anyways it interesting reading and i will enjoy....NOW if you went back and read what i have written....did i say there was NO jolts...personally even under perfect cd conditions....would there be jolts?. of course there would be....a structure is undergoing massive stresses,,,,does that mean the acceleration was not still smooth no....now when the building impacts the first floor from the falling upper block as according to bazant...would there be an initial massive jolt that would send a bit of data off the scale in a negative direction....you bet....it is apparently going to crush the first floor it strikes in order to continue downward.....hence the crushdown....but your so intelligent you would understand this right?.
but i want to ask you something that no one from the Believers side ever wants to discuss....what is happening to the central core as all this is happening....will you come back with an answer....we will see.
i am not going to answer you anymore...till you come back and provide answers you see how this works....why on earth should i just answer questions....when people never answer the questions i ask.....show me how these core columns are being compressed or just being shifted....show me why the 30ft sections all came apart....and why there are not say 60ft...90ft...or even 120ft sections laying about.....please explain.....why should they all have separated during a supposed fire induced collapse....talking building 7 here also...oh yes...and my south tower work is showing more interesting things during the rotation and tilt of the upper section....but we will get to that.
I want answers from others now....instead of the truther just giving you them....see if you can answer...for yourself.....just one of the questions....in your own words...not some copy and pasted remark....it is a challenge...give it a go....your own intelectual thinking...what a concept huh.

edit on 033131p://f52Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


You keep repeating something along the lines of "and yes it does arrest....as it loses the energy to proceed with the continued collapse", you even claim you can prove it with simple physics. Problem is, you nowhere do this. Even the paper you linked does not conclude that collapse arrests. So we have the word of someone that uses paint cans as model and thinks you can use average speed as impact speed of the debris, against a qualified expert who did a peer reviewed study. Do you understand why you are not convincing? Do you know what you should do to become convincing? Why should I accept anything you say at face value?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


did you answer any questions at all...nope....and you say i only do things on face value....go back throught thread a see who has presented info....and present numbers...presented anything of relevance....what have you done....hmmmm ....you said your a maths guy...and yet do you present maths to back your items up....nope....but don't worry i wont not expect you to take anything just on face value....but in saying that are you not taking Bazants and the NIST reports on face value when empirical data is showing a different story...
Now i went to check the data from where Joey nicely point out.....and it is another forum arguing in the same format....really informative huh....but i did look at the data...and i am in agreement with others....the new data and there is a slight reduction in acceleration....but it is still accelerating....and the smoothness of the accerleration is still very close.....so PLB please go have a look for yourself you may find a whole new area to look at....but back on track....i will give you the data....but should i just let it fly out there...nope.....right now i am plotting more points and will mark it off on a graph...does it take some time...yes it does....but if you want some flippant haphazard replied or a straight copy and paste i am sure you can find some....like i said....when people start to actually argue with their own intelligence.....it would be nice.....and also as i have said...and you keep bringing up the paints cans...the relevance was the resistance....so please just keep on bringing it up....when to go through Bazants work....come back and tell me what RB is....ok
When you comeback and tell me what it reprsents then we might proceed or do you want me to go back and show your words...on the elastic...part of what you said..I would rather move forward than backwards.
now there are words in one of the reports i showed you....collapse will not proceed to completion......but i will have to go back and look as i am busy working on some data points and computations.....but i will find it...but in the meantime you could go look before you find your foot back in your mouth.
I even stated i was having some respect for you....but you know what forget it....you use the term Elastic wrong....you said things fell approaching the speed of sound....you asked me to use a vid and not only did i use it..i plotted my own points on it.....what have you done to actually back up Bazants work....not one thing.
so please if you like his work so much and feel it absolutely applies...please back it up...you have said your field is not physics but your good with maths....so please show us the numbers to back it up.....show some initiative....because i have been....
you see as i have said all along....bazants work is done well...but it is crud because it does not apply to the wtc collapse.....simple thing really.
so please.....go and when you have a substantial amount of data that could be looked over and discussed .....it might be nice....
but here is some food for thought.

Newton’s third law states that all forces occur in pairs and
these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
In other words, for every action force, there is an equal and op-
posite reaction force. Applying Newton’s third law to the collapse
of the Twin Towers, it is clear that the downward force imposed
on Part B by the upper Part C generates an equal but opposite
upward force. It logically follows that if the downward force gen-
erated when Part C impacts Part B is destructive, then the equal
and opposite upward force generated in accordance with New-
ton’s third law will be destructive. Instead of embracing this basic
law of physics, the paper treats Part C as a rigid body during the
crush-down phase, then allows Part C to start deforming only at
the start of the crush-up phase:
After the lower crushing front hits the ground, the upper
crushing front of the compacted zone can begin propagat-
ing into the falling upper part C of the tower . . . This
will be called the crush-up phase . . . p. 313 of the paper
In this discussion, we assert that the crushing front will propa-
gate deep into the falling Part C long before the crushing front
hits the ground, so that the upper Part C does not remain a rigid
body as it crushes the lower part of the Tower. Thus, all the
paper’s differential equations and integrals are questionable be-
cause they fail to comport with Newton’s third law as applies to
the fundamental physical realities of each building.


now this is saying exactly what i have been saying all along....it is a report i have by James R Gourly

please look up his work...as i say i keep these reports on my computer but i am sure you can find it.

Oh yes there might even be a hint in there as to what RB is.....



edit on 073131p://f23Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The problem in your "analysis" is that it does not show that the top section collapsed first. The conclusion is that you can not see it. It is obscured by dust. But lets assume for a moment that you are right, and the top did collapse before it hit the ground. By no means that means CD was used. To model this would be more complex for sure, but it would not become more optimistic for survival. If you think it does, show it.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

wow.calling people dumb are we



Well, Tony supplied the data that debunked his own statement that there should be jolts but they aren't seen.

So that's dumb on a couple of levels.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

you even claim you can prove it with simple physics. Problem is, you nowhere do this.


You noticed this too.....


Even the paper you linked does not conclude that collapse arrests.


You noticed this too....


So we have the word of someone that uses paint cans as model and thinks you can use average speed as impact speed of the debris


You noticed this too....


Do you understand why you are not convincing? Do you know what you should do to become convincing? Why should I accept anything you say at face value?


You noticed this too....



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

but i want to ask you something that no one from the Believers side ever wants to discuss....what is happening to the central core as all this is happening....will you come back with an answer....we will see.



In Bazants model, the core columns would be buckling due to the axial impacts.

But in real life, that didn't happen.

Both towers tilted and there was no axial impacts of the columns. The columns missed each other and the respective core columns would have hit, and then punched through the floors. Then the floors, what was left of them, would have hit - at an angle.

Agree?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In Bazants model, the core columns would be buckling due to the axial impacts.


In Bazant's model, 50-95% of the total masses of either tower stayed within their square footprint the entire time they were falling, thus providing most/almost all of the energy he's assuming when he says these things happened.


But in real life, that didn't happen.


Exactly.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join