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: 62
420
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.



Yep. We both agree that Bazant's model is the most optimistic for collapse arrest.

And we both agree that since that didn't happen, and by agreeing to the above premise, we both agree that there was no way for the collapse to arrest.

Therefore, bazant's fitting the debris retention means absolutely zero to the actual collapses, since he's fitting it to his model study. Which means that you're whining about irrelevant items.

Nothing new there.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


As i said ...when you actually start to provide evidence to actually support the Bazant model....I will get back to you for now i am working on a paper...and will not answer any of your questions....as sorry i have done loads nore than you...and will continue ...thing is you actually think that the only thing i do is have time to hang out here and discuss foolishness...i ask you to answer some question first...and have ....not one....remember the word i used .....NOTHING.
now as you said the top section was not collapsing...where in the photo analysis...WHICH I SHOWED...is the upper section...there is only 11 floors showing there should be twelve so i have given you a floor....and do you see the tight hand corner of the lower section still intact....
now go and answer all the question i asked you and maybe maybe we wlll continue....you have not done one thing...and joey canolli....you think a guy who says the building falls at approachng the speed of sound...and that the top part is elastic....well you just go ahead and associate yourself with him....because i tell you it has been shown he does not have a clue.....also.....the last quote is exatly what the paint can example is showing....but hey....can i help if you do not understand examples...or simple line drawings to explain forces...
but right now i am busy....and don't worry ...will be back with my data soon....so please by all means....answer the question of anomalies i have asked.....get busy.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


In other words, a lot of text but no content. No physics whatsoever, even though they are so simple according to you. All you can do is whine about an over exaggeration I made, which I repeatedly retracted and corrected (and you failed to correct). I understand why, it is the only thing I said that was actually wrong. You have to keep focusing on it, so you can distract from anything else I say. So when are you going to admit your paint can model is nonsense and 30m/s is completely wrong? As for the elasticity, you think the building acted as perfect rigid body? Thats just another thing we can add to your list of your nonsense. Do you believe that the explosives distributed the mass homogeneously over the volume of the floor, like in that paper you linked? Now that is a plausible explanation, right?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


First of all i said i will be working on the paper...i will give the data...and it will be sent up for proper review...the 30m/s was not wrong at all...and you said that the impacts at the ground would be about 90m/s which is absolutely wrong....the impact on the first floors to come in contact was a mere....this is approx...but maybe just maybe 10- 12 m/s so please go correct your nembers...when i stated the 30 m/s that was the time form start to finish of the collapse and the distance travelled...an average velocity for the entire collapse...and people can read that very well thank you very much...and if you notice...the time i bring up the faults are when you try to make the paint can analogy out to be something it was not....it was to show the resistance of the lower structure...equal and opposite forces...also as was stated which was the upper section will be undergoing those same forces.... which will affect it....also i show you the words in the report....the COLLAPSE would fail to continue to completion...so once again your try to argue semantics....now when discussions become circular...which is the case...i move on...and go forward...and yet for the THIRD post here...you want to stay focussed on one thing but you NOT ONCE have gone back and answered one single question i have asked of you.....so as i said before and will say YET AGAIN....Answer the questions i have asked....I have nothing to justify to you...but when it is all one sided when i see individuals answering providing and showing work...and the otherside...just going but but but...and not showing one bit of YOUR OWN WORK....in your own words....and you think the conversation should continue...in the same format...i should think not.
SO now for the FOURTH TIME....do some work....because from what i have seen...you cant...I do not need to defend what i am saying as it shows in the work i have done.
And will show in the next sets of data.....And Joey Canolli can go back to the other forum and pick out arguments.....but that shows absolutely nothing also.
you answer questions showing your own infamous work and maybe the converstions can continue...but until then....because you still have not even answered where the floors have gone in the former post..here is the photo again...WHY IS THE CORNER ON THE RIGHT STILL NOT IMPACTED especially as this is what Joey is stating as axial column to column collapse.



now remember there is still one more floor on there....

NOW answer me this to.....the whole bazant report is that the upper section is a RB (rigid body/block)...
now please also answer the other questions and you might really want to look up the terms plastic/elastic....because you use the terms....COMPLETEY wrong in structural terms.

Now as i said show us the MATHS on how the Bazant models works...because way back in the thread i showed how you said you were great with the maths...so show us....then i can evaluate your maths....and we will see what conclusions can be drawn.....but NOT ONCE have you backed up anything you have stated PLB....

I asked you a simple question of Electronics...very very basic....how you would expect the current to behave before a resistor placed inline and how the current would behave after the resistance...because your an ELECTRICAL engineer......but did you even address the Analogy....NOPE.

you see....now why i am stopping this till you provide the same feedback i have given...and i will be done my data sets soon and then you will have even more chance to interpret MY WORK....not someone else's.

and then i will run the numbers through the Bazant Verdue model....The Obeserved.....and see if the numbers work.....but in the meantime.....why don't you get to work mister masters/Electrical Engineer.

back up what you say with your own work...as for Joey Canolli who thinks your a saint....he is a troll...and that is all.
edit on 033131p://f34Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


First of all i said i will be working on the paper...i will give the data...and it will be sent up for proper review...the 30m/s was not wrong at all...and you said that the impacts at the ground would be about 90m/s which is absolutely wrong....


I never said that. Try to understand what I write. I wrote it is about 1/5 of the speed of sound. Your assignment for today will be to calculate which speed that is.


the impact on the first floors to come in contact was a mere....this is approx...but maybe just maybe 10- 12 m/s so please go correct your nembers...when i stated the 30 m/s that was the time form start to finish of the collapse and the distance travelled...an average velocity for the entire collapse...and people can read that very well thank you very much...and if you notice...


You are either flat out lying in an attempt to hide your incompetence or you are so incompetent that you don't even realize your error. We were talking about the velocity of the debris impact. That is the instantaneous velocity, not the average velocity. I stated this velocity was about 1/5 that of sound, you wrongly corrected me in your broken english that it was about 1/10th. Like here:



it is LISTEN 1/10th


The rest of your ramblings has also been addressed several times so I will ignore it, but I thought I should at least expose your lies. Even for mentally challenged people lying is immoral.
edit on 27-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

i know what you were trying to get at completely.....the instantaneous velocity at the time the upper block comes in contact with the lower structure is guess what...do the calculations your self here...from time zero...being the start of the collapse to the time of impact with the lower block....a fall of one floor is being approx 3m it take approx .25s instantaneous v=square root of 2gd....7.6m/s Now when your talking about your 400m we have an instantaneous velocity of 88m/s....and at this point you will go ahhha....but as so many of you have stated the buildings did not fall at freefall speeds completely did they...they fell at near freefall so there was some resistance but very little....now your stating that the entire structure pulverized because all objects obtained these velocities.....hmmmm....first of all if you dropped into a viod that would be the case...but in a progressive collapse you have continuous impacts taking place....do you not....therefore there should be a continuous reduction of acceleration but do we see this occuring....nope....now did i say there was a missing jolt...NEVER...i pointed out the constant acceleration...and if you look closely at my own work...between the .25s and the .50s you will see a jolt...which will make Joey happy but for all the wrong reasons....because there is a jolt...does not mean the block is still not undergoing a constant acceleration just as i tried to point out with the Resistor and current that you the Electrical engineer are so unwilling to answer.
Now the 7.6m/s is a true number...compare to the distance travelled in the analysis....but also know i based it on 32 frames a second.....as i did a quick analysis just for you....but the true rate of the footage is about 29fps so i will recalculate it to the true frame rate.
just to show i can bend a little....but come back and say all the debris impacted at your 1/5 of approx 60m/s starting from top down as it goes through the lower struture remembering they did not fall at absolute freefall.

edit on 063131p://f37Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



edit on 063131p://f45Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073131p://f00Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)


NOTE: because i know you will try to come back on the 30m/s it still stands as an approx average velocity of the entire collapse through the distance travelled 300m..10secs.....when we had the discussion that is what was being talked about...then your tried to cover your A$$ by stating oops....on the speed of sound when i called you on that immediately....if you want you can go back and read it....remember i said i am not going to quote and re quote as i remember what is being said....i even remembered what you had stated in another thread way back....and brought it forward here...but you never remembered the converstaion.

Now can we move forward and discuss the things properly if not where is this leading...absolutely nowhere...you keep trying to discredit me....That is what seems to be the way to progress on the believers side....discredit people with credentials in order to make it look like they have not a clue what they are talking about.

I have no idea your skills or your abilities...do i wish to discredit you...nope...couldn't care less...do i want to keep going forward to show what did not bring down the buildings because i don't believe Bazants paper applies to The Observed.....and that NIST's models also do not relate to what really happened....yup.


edit on 073131p://f14Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073131p://f16Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I will take my accusation that you have been lying back, you really just don't understand it. I was talking about the speed at which the debris pile hits the ground. The building collapsed, and after about 12 seconds the pile of debris, which could contain stacked floors, reaches the ground. The impact of all that debris hitting the ground releases a huge amount of energy. The potential energy stored in the building was in the order of 100 ton TNT. Search Youtube what 100 ton TNT does. And that is the reason you do not see nicely stacked floors, which was the point I was making. The fact I over exaggerated the speed did not make my argument invalid. The argument is still completely valid with a lower speed. In fact, you can calculate the energy yourself using E=.5mv^2. Lets be conservative and use 100000 tons times .5 x 60^2 = 180000MJ. Equivalent to 43 tons of TNT. That would destroy anything that still looks like a structure wouldn't it? That was my argument, and whether I over exaggerated does not matter for that argument. Do you understand now? If not, I give up.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

when you actually start to provide evidence to actually support the Bazant model.




The Bazant model is the most optimistic to collapse arrest. If that model can't arrest, then there's zero chance of the collapses arresting.

Any scenario that attempts to model the ACTUAL dynamics fails to arrest, therefore.

And Bazant's model does not attempt to model the actual collapses, except in a most general way.

You will note, if you're able, that the majority of the resistance given in ALL of Bazant's papers/models relies on axial column crushing/buckling. Only a lunatic would suggest that THAT actually happened during the chaotic collapse progression.

Yet, this is just what you're doing........



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Ok rather than just assuming what your saying i will paraphrase what i think you are saying . .... are you saying that the twelve floors strike the lower structure some how compress on them selves ... when....during the begining phase when the two bodies collide...as in the RB and the LS. because would there not be a lot of energy used during the compression of those twelve floors in themselves....that being said then would there not even be less energy availible for the crush down phase in which bazants work is so dependant on.

But please lets not jump the gun here....let me please plot the points.....we can look at the what is happening during these phases....because i am working on the video now and plotting more points i will present it then you can have a field day on it....


Because i dont mind showing work....it tells me more and more.... we will try to look at if the upper section is crushing itself from footage....we will look at a time frame of approx 0.03sec per frame and we will see if we can get the measuremeants as close as we can with the footage there is to work with.....we will then plot points for 3seconds worth of data.....then we will graph all said data points....then we can apply the numbers to what we actually see happening....then if we can come to agreement that the data is reasonably true....We can work the numbers....then and only then can we even come close to disagreeing over our own mistakes rather than just spew other peoples numbers.

so as i get time it will be done.....c'ya



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


I will take my accusation that you have been lying back, you really just don't understand it. I was talking about the speed at which the debris pile hits the ground. The building collapsed, and after about 12 seconds the pile of debris, which could contain stacked floors, reaches the ground. The impact of all that debris hitting the ground releases a huge amount of energy. The potential energy stored in the building was in the order of 100 ton TNT. Search Youtube what 100 ton TNT does. And that is the reason you do not see nicely stacked floors, which was the point I was making. The fact I over exaggerated the speed did not make my argument invalid. The argument is still completely valid with a lower speed. In fact, you can calculate the energy yourself using E=.5mv^2. Lets be conservative and use 100000 tons times .5 x 60^2 = 180000MJ. Equivalent to 43 tons of TNT. That would destroy anything that still looks like a structure wouldn't it? That was my argument, and whether I over exaggerated does not matter for that argument. Do you understand now? If not, I give up.

I am wondering what pile of debris you mean. In both towers the upper portions at or near points of impact from the jets fell off and away from the vertical. The south tower's upper portion disintegrated as it leaned and twisted towards the horizontal. The north towers's upper portion did the same to an even greater degree of lean, except a large partially intact portion reached the street away from the lower structure. The lower portions of both buildings ejected all the superstructure away from the central point like a peeled banana to leave their remnant cores to stand momentarily before they too fell. There was no huge complete tower mass impacting the ground at any one point, although the north tower's upper section did in part. Indeed the material accelerated away from the centre point somehow, and I don't know how, but ironically it would have to be the case if the north tower debris was able to damage WT7 as stated. Yet in all, the huge dust cloud indicates concrete and drywalls being pulverised, which seems contradictory but it is there to be seen. A further enquiry might bring up something new, but a lot of the evidence is just not there anymore.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I am a talking about the pile of stacked floors. The questions was, if the floors fell on each other, why don't we see a neatly pile of stacked floors in the debris.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by smurfy
 


I am a talking about the pile of stacked floors. The questions was, if the floors fell on each other, why don't we see a neatly pile of stacked floors in the debris.


The question is more like, what floors? this picture for example,

drjudywood.com...


edit on 28-1-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yes, an equivalent of 100 ton TNT of energy being released will result in a lot chaos, thanks you for illustrating that.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


It's all open to interpretation when then "OS" itself is incomplete. Total disintegration like you see in the picture is pretty incredible. It is amazing that someone actually survived it.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I was talking about the speed at which the debris pile hits the ground. The building collapsed, and after about 12 seconds the pile of debris, which could contain stacked floors, reaches the ground.


Have you ever actually studied the collapses, or do you just take all this on faith?

The upper block does not fall as one whole, how many more times does this need repeating? The upper block was collapsing itself before the main collapse started, that is a proven FACT, denying it only shows you are either lying or you have not studied the collapses.

So there was no acceleration of the top 'stacked floors'. There was no block of 'stacked floors' to 'hit the ground', everything was ejected laterally in a symmetrical 360d arc. The top 'stacked floors' were gone by the time the collapse finished. I would say just watch the videos, but I have a feeling you have no idea what you're looking at anyway, faith is all you have.
edit on 1/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-
I was talking about the speed at which the debris pile hits the ground. The building collapsed, and after about 12 seconds the pile of debris, which could contain stacked floors, reaches the ground.


Have you ever actually studied the collapses, or do you just take all this on faith?

The upper block does not fall as one whole, how many more times does this need repeating? The upper block was collapsing itself before the main collapse started, that is a proven FACT, denying it only shows you are either lying or you have not studied the collapses.

So there was no acceleration of the top 'stacked floors'. There was no block of 'stacked floors' to 'hit the ground', everything was ejected laterally in a symmetrical 360d arc. The top 'stacked floors' were gone by the time the collapse finished. I would say just watch the videos, but I have a feeling you have no idea what you're looking at anyway, faith is all you have.
edit on 1/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo

I have to agree with that, It seems that many are transfixed by the video of the north tower falling as viewed from the north, in that it appears to come straight down and the mast seems to emphasise that, when in fact the whole top section is falling away from the Focal point of view roughly to the south. Also that posted video shows the same collapse in closeup in a narrower field of view, which again emphasises a straight down universal collapse of the top section, that is simply not the case. What is falling straight down is a large arch shaped section, widest at the point of impact, almost corner to corner and narrowing to the apex of an arch at the very top of the north tower on that face, where it detaches from the rest of the top section, as the rest of the top section falls away to the south.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Not everyone has the superhuman ability to see through dust clouds like many truthers have. So I have no way to determine what happened exactly.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Not everyone has the superhuman ability to see through dust clouds like many truthers have. So I have no way to determine what happened exactly.


Well the opportunity is there with the newer NIST videos, (from FOIA) forget about clairvoyance, and truthers and excusing yourself.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Not everyone has the superhuman ability to see through dust clouds like many truthers have.


In one case I was referring directly to the debris cloud's large volume, and you said you couldn't see that either for the dust cloud.

Apparently that cloud of ejected dust and debris was so impenetrable, not only can you not see the building before they obscure it, but you can't even see the dust cloud itself.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yep. We both agree that Bazant's model is the most optimistic for collapse arrest.


Another great demonstration of you either not reading or not understanding what you are reading. Including the amount of mass that was ejected, but that he assumed remained within the footprint, would be more "optimistic" towards arrest. Without that mass he has a significantly reduced amount of potential energy to use throughout the collapse, which is why his model is forced to ignore the facts.


Therefore, bazant's fitting the debris retention means absolutely zero to the actual collapses, since he's fitting it to his model study. Which means that you're whining about irrelevant items.

Nothing new there.


So pointing out that his model has nothing to do with reality is "whining." Alright.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join