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: 68
420
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The core was not able to stand by itself as there was no lateral stability. It does lean before collapse but it doesn't fall over like a tree because it is not rigid enough. If it didn't fall from gravity what did it fall from?


On what basis do you claim there was no lateral stability? The thousands of cross braces, and the fact it was sunk into bed rock would allow it to stand. It might not be the safest tower at 110 stories tall, but it wouldn't just simply fail and collapse straight down.

Ever looked at a sky crane lately, same principle, a tower consisting of cross bracing. They manage to stay erect without any other lateral stability, and also lift heavy weights on a cantilever creating instability. BTW the floors of the towers were a cantilever system.

Part of it barely leans before it disappears and is replaced by dust. No solid beam is going to collapse straight down through itself, go ahead and try it. If the column failed at the bottom it would fall like a tree, if the failure was higher up the whole thing would not have disappeared.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
On what basis do you claim there was no lateral stability? The thousands of cross braces, and the fact it was sunk into bed rock would allow it to stand. It might not be the safest tower at 110 stories tall, but it wouldn't just simply fail and collapse straight down.

Ever looked at a sky crane lately, same principle, a tower consisting of cross bracing. They manage to stay erect without any other lateral stability, and also lift heavy weights on a cantilever creating instability. BTW the floors of the towers were a cantilever system.

Part of it barely leans before it disappears and is replaced by dust. No solid beam is going to collapse straight down through itself, go ahead and try it. If the column failed at the bottom it would fall like a tree, if the failure was higher up the whole thing would not have disappeared.


On the basis that there wasn't any lateral support. Sky cranes are not 1000' feet tall. Look at television antennas for an idea of lateral support.
The tower leans to one side and only then collapses. The dust was on the structure and the structure fell, leaving the dust in the air. No steel turned to dust. The tree analogy is false. Consider that the core was not one piece and that it would fail at many points. Each section would tend to go down more than out.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
On the basis that there wasn't any lateral support. Sky cranes are not 1000' feet tall. Look at television antennas for an idea of lateral support.
The tower leans to one side and only then collapses. The dust was on the structure and the structure fell, leaving the dust in the air. No steel turned to dust. The tree analogy is false. Consider that the core was not one piece and that it would fail at many points. Each section would tend to go down more than out.


The spire that collapsed wasn't 1000' tall either. I already said a tower that tall will not be the safest, but it's not going to suddenly fail in the manner we see the spire fail. Also seeing as the central core handled the majority of the vertical load I still claim that it could have stood by itself. It might not survive a hurricane, but it would not just collapse from its own weight. The weakest point is the base, and that is where it would fail first.

The height is not going to cause it to fail in the manner we see the spire fail. The tower does not lean to one side, only one section slightly leans before it disappears and we see nothing but dust. If the columns fell we would see them as they fall, or do you think it falls so fast its a blur?

How would the core fail at many points? If part of the core was still standing then it didn't fail at all, otherwise it would have just collapse with the rest of the building. But the main 47 core columns were ONE PIECE laterally braced. To fail at many points those 47 columns would have to be cut.
If the bracing failed, at multiple points, the columns would still fall like a tree, a solid object, not fall straight down.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If the bracing failed, at multiple points, the columns would still fall like a tree, a solid object, not fall straight down.

The column is not a rigid object. It will not fall like a tree.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
His model that proved progressive collapse assumed that only the mass of the top section was available. That means no mass at all accumulated, or in other words, 100% of the debris ejected.


That wasn't in the Bazant paper that I read. Show me where in the paper they show this.


Why do you think stuff is blown in all directions?





Could it have to do with there being pressure buildup? (hint: yes).


Is "pressure build-up" a phenomenon associated with large multi-ton structural debris flying out of the same "container"? (hint: no)


How about this: why don't you prove that more than 50% ejected.


Look, at the footprints of the towers. Look at the intact perimeter and core columns on the ground. Don't be blind and don't make up stuff like it all went underground through the still-intact structure.


And while you are at it, also explain why exactly this is relevant. What are you trying to prove?


Only basic observations, and it fascinates me how much someone can deny the obvious.
edit on 11-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

unfortunately for you ANOK is absolutely correct and every hypothesis you've attempted to generate is shear nonsense...seriously



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The column is not a rigid object. It will not fall like a tree.


Oh, so what is it then Einstein?



Last time I worked with steel it sure was a rigid substance. You're just making stuff up as usual.

Don't even reply, we don't need a ten page discussion on whether a steel beam/column is a rigid object. In fact made more so because they were HSS (hollow steel section) box columns, which are stronger than solid beams.


HSS, especially rectangular sections, are commonly used in welded steel frames where members experience loading in multiple directions. Square and circular HSS have very efficient shapes for this multiple-axis loading as they have uniform geometric and thus uniform strength characteristics along two or more cross-sectional axes; this makes them good choices for columns. They also have excellent resistance to torsion.


en.wikipedia.org...

WTC box columns were made from 4" thick steel at the bottom, thicker than some tank armor.

AKA known as 'tube columns', and this is where the 'tube in tube' term comes from that you debunkers love to throw around like it proves some vague point you have.


edit on 2/12/2011 by ANOK because: type



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


1000 feet of steel is not rigid. If it was why would the complete building sway [est. 20'] in a wind? The core was not laterally supported. 1000 feet of steel is not one piece. It is bolted together. Joints fail.
Look at a steel transmitter tower and tell me why guy wires are needed. If steel is rigid, what are springs made of? Tape measures are steel. Use one as a prybar and tell me how it works for you.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You don't really know what Bazants model is for and what is proves, you confuse laymen guesstimates with proof, and you are not even making a point in the first place. It is a bit amazing that you take a subject you know little about, start discussing it, and in the end tell you don't even have a point, just a laymen opinion about an irrelevant issue. This illustrates the problem of the truth movement at large, a lack of direction and coherency.

But at least you realize that pressure can not "blow out" the core and floors. That excludes explosives. Anyway, since you don't want an explanation anyhow (asking for explanations is a fallacy) I guess any further discussion is pointless. Just keep believing whatever you want.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

On what basis do you claim there was no lateral stability? The thousands of cross braces, and the fact it was sunk into bed rock would allow it to stand.


The floor beams in the core area had simple connections only. This kind of connection is adequate and all that is needed to support the floor loads.... and serve the purpose of bracing the columns for the purpose of shortening the length of the unsupported column in order to reduce its euler;s buckling length.

For the core columns, on their own, to laterally stable, would require moment connections. But there were none, since all lateral stability was achieved through the composite floors acting as a diaphram through the spandrel plates on other ext columns.


but it wouldn't just simply fail and collapse straight down.


Sure it would.

Without the moment connections, it will lean just a little, which will fracture the welds the joined the individual column sections. So if the lateral velocity at the time of fracture is low, say .1 meter per second, the surviving columns seen in the video will accelerate at gravity. This gives the illusion that it is collapsing straight down, but it isn't. the lateral velocity remains.


Ever looked at a sky crane lately, same principle, a tower consisting of cross bracing. They manage to stay erect without any other lateral stability, and also lift heavy weights on a cantilever creating instability.


And they are designed for this. Also note that they have limits on the wind velocity that they can operate at. Cuz it will result in instability of the crane. there have been many crane disasters because of operators ignoring this safety reg.


BTW the floors of the towers were a cantilever system.


LMAO. No.


Part of it barely leans before it disappears and is replaced by dust.


Delusional statement.


No solid beam is going to collapse straight down through itself


Strawman.


If the column failed at the bottom it would fall like a tree


If a SINGLE 30' column failed due to tipping/joint failure... it would most likely tip like a tree. However, a several hundred foot length, single column MIGHT tip like a tree, depending on its rigidity, length, type of column joining,etc.

Such a blanket statement as yours is useless.


if the failure was higher up the whole thing would not have disappeared.


Disappeared?
edit on 12-2-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The fact that he is assuming more mass than was actually available is your first and most obvious "clue" from this discussion that his model does not assume conditions most optimistic for the buildings to survive. Adding more imaginary mass that wasn't actually available is contributing to destroying them!



Hid model also incorporates column crushing all the way to the ground, which didn't happen.

The mass included, or 'ejected during the collapse and not able to contribute' in your delusional claim, only affects the spped of the collapse.

It is only in your imagination that mass gets ejected to the degree that you claim. To be sure, some couldn't contribute:

1- ext columns and cladding.
2- cummulative weight of the concrete and drywall dust, and any office junk being blown through the windows.
3- the surviving columns

But that's about it, until you can show some photographic evidence of a significant percentage of floor pans and trusses, elevator equipment, HVAC equipment, etc being airborne during the collapse.

We all know you can't, despite your previous claim of seeing this, cuz it's a lie. Or a delusion.

Therefore, your claim doesn't even begin to pique the curiousity of any rational thinker. But since the purpose of making these claims is to further your delusions and get stars for your posts from equally delusional truthers, you will achieve nothing of consequence.

Other than providing LULZ to those of us that read your posts with great amusement.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


1000 feet of steel is not rigid. If it was why would the complete building sway [est. 20'] in a wind? The core was not laterally supported. 1000 feet of steel is not one piece. It is bolted together. Joints fail.
Look at a steel transmitter tower and tell me why guy wires are needed. If steel is rigid, what are springs made of? Tape measures are steel. Use one as a prybar and tell me how it works for you.


Just because something sways in the wind it doesn't mean it's not rigid. And again the spire was NOT 1000' tall.

Again just because something is bolted, or welded, it doesn't mean if it fails it will fall straight down as if its atoms came apart. It will still fall like a tree from the point of failure, the 'spire' does not do that.

Also why if joints failed did the spire wait so long to collapse? If joints failed during the collapse then it would have fell during the collapse, not wait.

Springs? LOL. What has that got to do with steel columns? A spring is made of solid rigid steel, it's design makes it compressible. A tape measure? You really think steel columns are made the same as a tape measure?

You seem to have an odd definition of 'rigid'. This is nothing but another one of your semantic games.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

The floor beams in the core area had simple connections only. This kind of connection is adequate and all that is needed to support the floor loads.... and serve the purpose of bracing the columns for the purpose of shortening the length of the unsupported column in order to reduce its euler;s buckling length.

For the core columns, on their own, to laterally stable, would require moment connections. But there were none, since all lateral stability was achieved through the composite floors acting as a diaphram through the spandrel plates on other ext columns.


Moment connections? A moment connection is ANY connection that joins a beam to a column and keeps it from rotating.

This has nothing to do with what happened to the spire.


Sure it would.

Without the moment connections, it will lean just a little, which will fracture the welds the joined the individual column sections. So if the lateral velocity at the time of fracture is low, say .1 meter per second, the surviving columns seen in the video will accelerate at gravity. This gives the illusion that it is collapsing straight down, but it isn't. the lateral velocity remains.


Do you know that welds are often stronger than the material welded? You automatically assume that welds would fail when this is not fact.

Accelerate at gravity? So that is so fast that the steel is a blur? Wow! Things that accelerate at gravity can be observed.

What individual column sections? The 47 core columns ran from the bedrock to the roof. 4" thick steel that tapered after the 66th floor. If the welds failed, unlikely as there is not enough energy available to do this, they would still not act like we observe in the videos. Welds are not weak points.



And they are designed for this. Also note that they have limits on the wind velocity that they can operate at. Cuz it will result in instability of the crane. there have been many crane disasters because of operators ignoring this safety reg.


I already said the WTC core would probably have trouble in high winds, I said the core could stand on its own I didn't say it would be able to withstand winds. But this has nothing to do with how the spire fell. It could hold itself enough without complete failure. The design of columns and bracing is the same as any tower.


Delusional statement.


No it is an observational statement.



If a SINGLE 30' column failed due to tipping/joint failure... it would most likely tip like a tree. However, a several hundred foot length, single column MIGHT tip like a tree, depending on its rigidity, length, type of column joining,etc.

Such a blanket statement as yours is useless.


What does the length of the steel have anything to do with it? The spire was not several hundred feet tall either.

How do you expect it to collapse? Does a thousand year old red wood fall straight down when felled because it's so tall?


Disappeared?


Why the question mark, this is what we're talking about? From observing the many videos you can clearly see the steel does not collapse in the normal sense. I can't help it if you can not see what I'm seeing.


edit on 2/12/2011 by ANOK because: type



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You don't really know what Bazants model is for and what is proves, you confuse laymen guesstimates with proof, and you are not even making a point in the first place. It is a bit amazing that you take a subject you know little about, start discussing it, and in the end tell you don't even have a point, just a laymen opinion about an irrelevant issue. This illustrates the problem of the truth movement at large, a lack of direction and coherency.


Look, a dime-a-dozen substanceless rant, nothing but a laundry list of accusations based on your projections.

I can come up with those, too. But I'm not going to waste my time describing why you're the one that's really wrong and ignorant, lacking direction and coherency, etc. You know why?

Because at the end of the day, you're still the one in denial about what is clearly shown in photographs, want to dispute what is clearly shown in photographs, and start making up more theories based on nothing just to prop up more junk science that contradicts photographs, like all the debris piled into the basements even though the structure was intact on the ground level. That is your level of direction and coherency.


You couldn't work a free-body diagram or vectors after claiming to know more about them than I do. You think when your beliefs are proven wrong, you have to have another full explanation immediately available or else it's acceptable for you to continue believing something erroneous. You think asking for an explanation of why so much debris was thrown in all directions, is somehow a rebuttal of the fact that so much debris was in fact thrown in all directions. You won't accept what is clearly visible in photographs, and favor claims of invisible debris spreads that no one can see, as opposed to massive debris clouds that everyone saw except you, because the massive debris clouds obscured your view.


You going on a rant about how deluded I must be without even trying to justify any of the fallacies you perpetuate is a joke. Something that would normally be amusing if not for the context.

I care least of all what you personal opinions are. Whenever you feel like getting back on anything remotely related to the topic, you have a whole slew of nonsense claims and blatant logical fallacies that might deserve more attention than what you think of me.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The mass included, or 'ejected during the collapse and not able to contribute' in your delusional claim, only affects the spped of the collapse.


Only to someone truly self-deluded is photographic evidence a delusion. If you ever want to know how much debris really "collapsed" to the bottom floor, all you have to do is look at the photos of the footprints at Ground Zero. It may be a method too straightforward and simple for minds that are constantly scrambling to justify their own delusion, but speculation of all the debris landing in the footprint and then bouncing or rolling out hundreds of feet to blanket Ground Zero is the kind of nonsense you will only find on internet forums where who "wins" an argument is more important than bothering to make any sense.

Bazant says in his own paper that the amount of mass ejected during the "collapses," as indicated by how much is left in the footprints, is too much for his model to handle. "only affects the spped of the collapse" is another way of saying Bazant doesn't conform to reality. And you probably still think he made all assumptions in favor of arresting the collapse, just because you want to, and there will never be any reasoning with you until you are ready for reason yourself.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


How tall do you think the spire was? Do you think that steel turned to dust?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So, did any of your say last 50 post have any point at all, or was it just about you claiming that I am wrong in an irrelevant issue? Why on earth would you even care about it if is isn't in any way relevant?
edit on 14-2-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The only thing I can think of that is more rigid that steel, is
the attitude you have about the truth.

Steel is rigid, and flexible.

If a tape measure was four inches thick it would not flex or bend.

Steel for construction is rigid and somewhat flexible.

The metal used for diving boards is flexible.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by pteridine
 


The only thing I can think of that is more rigid that steel, is
the attitude you have about the truth.

Steel is rigid, and flexible.

If a tape measure was four inches thick it would not flex or bend.

Steel for construction is rigid and somewhat flexible.

The metal used for diving boards is flexible.



Steel is rigid and flexible? Rigid means inflexible.
www.merriam-webster.com...
rig·id adj \ˈri-jəd\Definition of RIGID1 a: deficient in or devoid of flexibility

At the length to thickness ratios in the towers, the core was flexible as were the exterior columns. Check the vaunted youtube evidentiary videos that show all sorts of columnar flexing. My attitude does not have anything to do with the elastic properties of steel and your desire to reach predetermined conclusions.

There was no magic about the core collapse.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So, did any of your say last 50 post have any point at all, or was it just about you claiming that I am wrong in an irrelevant issue? Why on earth would you even care about it if is isn't in any way relevant?


Somewhere in our exchange you brought up Bazant's paper as if it were proof of something. I guess that was your mistake.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join