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: 69
420
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, that was no mistake. It proves that gravity alone would make the collapse progress. No explosives needed. But since you don't know or understand what his model is actually for its not that strange that you bring up irrelevant issues. You still seem to think his model was meant to represents the actual observed collapse.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, that was no mistake. It proves that gravity alone would make the collapse progress.


Not hardly, but that's probably the 3rd time you've changed your story as to what exactly it proves, so whatever.


But since you don't know or understand what his model is actually for its not that strange that you bring up irrelevant issues.


By "irrelevant issues" I assume you're referring to some of the erroneous data that Bazant assumed in his model, which is actually completely relevant to you bringing Bazant up at all.


You still seem to think his model was meant to represents the actual observed collapse.


Unless it was meant only as an arithmetic exercise, I think it should be obvious that Bazant was trying to prove something about the actual collapses. You say he proved that "gravity alone would make the collapse progress." Sure he did, after he assumed several times the amount of mass we actually have evidence for staying within the footprint the entire duration, and failed to even account for a specific collapse mechanism, among many other issues others have pointed out.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


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


It really doesn't matter how tall it was, didn't I already say that?

I don't know what happened to it, all I know is it didn't collapse though an arc as a solid steel column should.

It's just a curiosity, and I like asking questions. Lot's of people have noticed this.



The whole section just folds in and collapses vertically. For that to happen the columns would have to be broken up in short sections, 4" thick HSS columns won't just collapse like that. Another explanation is that is not steel at all, they had concrete cores, and the spire is the corner of a rebar reinforced concrete wall.




edit on 2/15/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not hardly, but that's probably the 3rd time you've changed your story as to what exactly it proves, so whatever.


No, its not. It is more like the 3rd time you haven't got a clue.


By "irrelevant issues" I assume you're referring to some of the erroneous data that Bazant assumed in his model, which is actually completely relevant to you bringing Bazant up at all.


No, I mean issues that do not disprove his model at all. The type of issues you come up with. Like magically ejecting floors and cores.


Unless it was meant only as an arithmetic exercise, I think it should be obvious that Bazant was trying to prove something about the actual collapses. You say he proved that "gravity alone would make the collapse progress." Sure he did, after he assumed several times the amount of mass we actually have evidence for staying within the footprint the entire duration, and failed to even account for a specific collapse mechanism, among many other issues others have pointed out.


On repeat: No he did not assume several times the mass. You think he assumed that because you are clueless and delusional.
edit on 15-2-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't know what happened to it, all I know is it didn't collapse though an arc as a solid steel column should.


So this is just another example of "I have a gut feeling that this shouldn't have happened" reasoning. It wasn't a one piece column. Why would you expect it to fall like a tree? This is a common misconception of those who have watched too many disaster movies.
A structure like the core, lacking lateral support, becomes unstable as it moves a few degrees off vertical. The joints are not designed for much off vertical stress and collapse occurs.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, its not. It is more like the 3rd time you haven't got a clue.


When I have I heard you say something like that before? Oh yeah, when you told me you changing the angle of a truss increases the force it exerts, and kept telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and that you knew how to do vector math and work a FBD, just to be proven wrong by the simplest FBD diagram in the world and go on some rant about how you're not a physics teacher. When you just tell me I don't have a clue, I've seen plenty enough of your own "reasoning" to not take you seriously at all. You should probably either try harder or not try at all, unless you enjoy wasting your own time.



By "irrelevant issues" I assume you're referring to some of the erroneous data that Bazant assumed in his model, which is actually completely relevant to you bringing Bazant up at all.


No, I mean issues that do not disprove his model at all. The type of issues you come up with. Like magically ejecting floors and cores.


Oh, you used the word "magic" to describe an observed fact, now I really feel "debunked."



On repeat: No he did not assume several times the mass. You think he assumed that because you are clueless and delusional.


Because I choose to value photographic evidence, while you prefer to ignore it and make up baseless theories to explain the contradictions they create for your own beliefs.

You've seen plenty of photos showing perimeter and core columns scattered all over Ground Zero, and two tiny stubs of debris piles in the footprints that don't even extend beyond where the lobby used to be in either tower, and that's including the intact structure below it on the ground level.

And still you deny what is clearly visible in photographs. You're the OS equivalent of a no-planer. You don't care what evidence is actually available because you "know" you're right anyway. Keep ignoring the obvious and projecting it onto me. In the end you are only embarrassing yourself.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
So this is just another example of "I have a gut feeling that this shouldn't have happened" reasoning. It wasn't a one piece column. Why would you expect it to fall like a tree? This is a common misconception of those who have watched too many disaster movies.


How does it not being a one piece column make it act any differently? In fact seeing as it is multiple columns braced together should make it even harder to fall straight down.

Too many disaster movies lol? This is physics mate.


A structure like the core, lacking lateral support, becomes unstable as it moves a few degrees off vertical. The joints are not designed for much off vertical stress and collapse occurs.


Not designed for vertical stress? You are just making things up again. The core columns held the majority of the VERTICAL loads. But what vertical stress was there once the floors were removed? You seem to still wrongly insist the core was not strong enough to hold itself up, which is nonsense, if it couldn't hold itself up it could not hold itself up with heavy floors attached to it. The outer facade mesh would have to have taken more of the vertical load, which would effect its ability to handle the lateral loads. Buildings are always designed to hold much more weigh than themselves. The core should be able to hold its own weight with no problems, otherwise the building would never have been stable in the first place.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Read my quote: "off vertical" stress. As soon as it moves from the vertical, its own weight puts lateral stress on the connections.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
When I have I heard you say something like that before? Oh yeah, when you told me you changing the angle of a truss increases the force it exerts, and kept telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and that you knew how to do vector math and work a FBD, just to be proven wrong by the simplest FBD diagram in the world and go on some rant about how you're not a physics teacher. When you just tell me I don't have a clue, I've seen plenty enough of your own "reasoning" to not take you seriously at all. You should probably either try harder or not try at all, unless you enjoy wasting your own time.


I never said that "changing the angle of a truss increases the force it exerts". If you think I did you are absolutely totally clueless. I was never proven wrong, thats just your delusion acting again. I explained in detail what was wrong with your diagram, Nutter even showed how to do it correctly. It is amazing how a delusional mind can distorts the facts



Oh, you used the word "magic" to describe an observed fact, now I really feel "debunked."


Yet you admitted you have no photographic evidence of it whatsoever. Again you confuse your delusion with observed fact.


Because I choose to value photographic evidence, while you prefer to ignore it and make up baseless theories to explain the contradictions they create for your own beliefs.

You've seen plenty of photos showing perimeter and core columns scattered all over Ground Zero, and two tiny stubs of debris piles in the footprints that don't even extend beyond where the lobby used to be in either tower, and that's including the intact structure below it on the ground level.

And still you deny what is clearly visible in photographs. You're the OS equivalent of a no-planer. You don't care what evidence is actually available because you "know" you're right anyway. Keep ignoring the obvious and projecting it onto me. In the end you are only embarrassing yourself.


And none of that disproves Bazants model. Again your confuse your layman guesstimate with "what is clearly visible in photographs".



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
interesting video, and i agree it looked an awful lot like the towers, but i noticed the reaction in the video happened in seconds. i realize the video is merely debunking claims of people saying "thermite is impossible!"(which is idiotic, it's certainly possible), but would it really take as long as it did to burn through various parts of the building? even if it was tactically placed? or was this explained elsewhere and i missed it?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WilliamRikeronaSegway
 


One of the arguments against thermite is the inability to time the effects of multiple charges. This is why quiet thermite is not used to demolish buildings. Linear shaped charges work quickly, so a sequence of charges can be used. As there was no sequence of explosions, thermite was claimed as a possible demolition material and a great deal of effort went in to making the case, rather poorly as it turns out. Thermite doesn't make the noise of the linear charges but it also doesn't work nearly fast enough to stay on the leading edge of a collapse. This is a small point for the CTer's who really want a conspiracy.
Thermite could be used as a single charge to precipitate the collapse. Why conspirators would chance discovery to cause a collapse when the towers were irreparably damaged is unknown. Why they would wait for the time they did before collapse is also unexplainable.
The single charge theory hasn't had too many takers because it says that once the collapse started that it was all gravity doing the work. As soon as this is subscribed to, many of the theories become invalid, e.g., the "squibs" were just blowouts from compression. The point would then be made that if there were no initiating charge, the collapse would look exactly the same. The CTer's don't want to deal with this because much of their argument is based on videos of the collapse "violating laws of physics" and generally "not looking right."



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I never said that "changing the angle of a truss increases the force it exerts".


I asked you how the trusses could increase loads on the exterior columns without gaining weight. You said "It is about the direction of the force." How do you change the direction of the force being applied to the perimeter column, without changing its angle relative to it?

Your post: www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you think I did you are absolutely totally clueless. I was never proven wrong, thats just your delusion acting again. I explained in detail what was wrong with your diagram, Nutter even showed how to do it correctly. It is amazing how a delusional mind can distorts the facts


It really is amazing how a delusional mind can distort the facts. What Nutter posted was a beam supported by two columns underneath it. See if you can find why that would not be relevant to the truss/perimeter connections, especially since me and Nutter even discussed this on the same thread pages. You probably didn't even read those. Anyway saying you weren't proven wrong is ridiculous because none of what you said made sense in the first place. You never proved anything you said was true, or that it even made sense. Take the post I linked to above as an example. We can go back and review if you want, it's no more or less ridiculous than what you've been arguing on these last few pages.




Oh, you used the word "magic" to describe an observed fact, now I really feel "debunked."


Yet you admitted you have no photographic evidence of it whatsoever. Again you confuse your delusion with observed fact.


Stop lying. I already told you there was photographic evidence, and there is, of core columns and perimeter columns both scattered all over Ground Zero, particularly outside of the building footprints. You have seen these photos. Every time you claim there is no evidence that the core went outside of the footprints, you are either lying or are in a very sad state of denial. Please stop knee-jerking the same automatic responses without thinking about any damned thing. That's why these discussions go nowhere. I show you pictures and you pretend they don't exist. I show you pictures and you start making up new crap theories to explain why they show what they do. I show you pictures and you completely ignore the obvious reality of what is shown inside them. How is that different from a no-planer looking at the impact video/photos and saying it's fake?



You've seen plenty of photos showing perimeter and core columns scattered all over Ground Zero, and two tiny stubs of debris piles in the footprints that don't even extend beyond where the lobby used to be in either tower, and that's including the intact structure below it on the ground level. ...


And none of that disproves Bazants model. Again your confuse your layman guesstimate with "what is clearly visible in photographs".


Actually Bazant's model assumed 50-95% of the mass stayed within the footprints during the entire "collapse." If that doesn't prove to you that Bazant's model is out of touch with reality, then that just means we know that you're also out of touch with reality.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Here's an idea. Why don't we ask the moderators to debate the validity of Bazant's paper in the debate forums? It's a narrow topic of discussion and maybe it could offer you a more objective perspective on your apparent 'assuming 50-95% of the mass stayed within the footprints is good science' mentality.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked you how the trusses could increase loads on the exterior columns without gaining weight. You said "It is about the direction of the force." How do you change the direction of the force being applied to the perimeter column, without changing its angle relative to it?


The rigid truss starts behaving like a catenary when it is weakened. The changing angle is only a consequence. I already explained that but you just don't understand it. I really can't help you do not understand basic physics.


It really is amazing how a delusional mind can distort the facts. What Nutter posted was a beam supported by two columns underneath it. See if you can find why that would not be relevant to the truss/perimeter connections, especially since me and Nutter even discussed this on the same thread pages. You probably didn't even read those. Anyway saying you weren't proven wrong is ridiculous because none of what you said made sense in the first place. You never proved anything you said was true, or that it even made sense. Take the post I linked to above as an example. We can go back and review if you want, it's no more or less ridiculous than what you've been arguing on these last few pages.


I directed you to a pile of papers about the phenomena, including experiments. I am not sure how I can prove it any better.


Stop lying. I already told you there was photographic evidence, and there is, of core columns and perimeter columns both scattered all over Ground Zero, particularly outside of the building footprints. You have seen these photos. Every time you claim there is no evidence that the core went outside of the footprints, you are either lying or are in a very sad state of denial. Please stop knee-jerking the same automatic responses without thinking about any damned thing. That's why these discussions go nowhere. I show you pictures and you pretend they don't exist. I show you pictures and you start making up new crap theories to explain why they show what they do. I show you pictures and you completely ignore the obvious reality of what is shown inside them. How is that different from a no-planer looking at the impact video/photos and saying it's fake?


Post the photos. Mark the columns and floor. Prove it accounts for the majority of the mass.



Actually Bazant's model assumed 50-95% of the mass stayed within the footprints during the entire "collapse." If that doesn't prove to you that Bazant's model is out of touch with reality, then that just means we know that you're also out of touch with reality.


His model that proves gravity only is enough to make the collapse progress assumed 0% mass being accumulated (3th time I say this?). Mass accumulation was only required to match the collapse speed. You just don't have a clue do you?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The rigid truss starts behaving like a catenary when it is weakened.


If that actually meant anything in terms of increasing the actual loads that the perimeter column would experience, there would be forces determinable through equations that you could add to the FBD. Are you going to show explicitly how this would have any effect at all on the weight or other variables associated with the trusses? Just because the shape changes doesn't mean it effectively suddenly gets heavier to the perimeter column.


The changing angle is only a consequence. I already explained that but you just don't understand it. I really can't help you do not understand basic physics.


No, I imagine you can't since you can't even teach yourself basic physics. So are you saying the changing angle itself has anything to do with a change in the loading experience by the column or not? This is what I already showed with a FBD to be false reasoning, and equally so when you are trying to apply a force in any new direction to increase the loading. It will only decrease the loading experienced by the column unless there is something else going on, that you apparently don't know about because you can't say what it is. What else about theoretical sagging of the trusses would cause the column to experience greater loading?


I directed you to a pile of papers about the phenomena, including experiments. I am not sure how I can prove it any better.


I don't think you would be able to explain your own links, either.


Post the photos. Mark the columns and floor. Prove it accounts for the majority of the mass.


Here's one of them showing core columns and perimeter columns laying everywhere:




I've explained dozens of times that the way to best estimate the amount of mass thrown from the footprints is by comparing to what is remaining in the footprints. This is the reasoning that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend, similar to how you can't see any debris in the dust cloud because all the debris in the dust cloud is blocking your view.

I must have also posted dozens of photos throughout this thread already too, probably at least half of them specifically for you, but yet here you are asking me to show photos again. Maybe there is some memory deficiency here that is also causing me to waste my time?



His model that proves gravity only is enough to make the collapse progress assumed 0% mass being accumulated (3th time I say this?).


Yeah, and how many times have I asked to see the specific quote for that in his paper?

Are you too lazy to open the pdf again?





And do you want to take this to the debate forums or not?
edit on 16-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


and the whole world finds out about it AFTER 10 FREAKIN YEARS...
its' "good"...

what else will we find out in another 10 years?!


meanwhile THE AMERICANS (NOT ALL) DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT...


Dumb Americans - 9/11 interview
www.youtube.com...

and these individuals CAN VOTE!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If that actually meant anything in terms of increasing the actual loads that the perimeter column would experience, there would be forces determinable through equations that you could add to the FBD. Are you going to show explicitly how this would have any effect at all on the weight or other variables associated with the trusses? Just because the shape changes doesn't mean it effectively suddenly gets heavier to the perimeter column.

No, I imagine you can't since you can't even teach yourself basic physics. So are you saying the changing angle itself has anything to do with a change in the loading experience by the column or not? This is what I already showed with a FBD to be false reasoning, and equally so when you are trying to apply a force in any new direction to increase the loading. It will only decrease the loading experienced by the column unless there is something else going on, that you apparently don't know about because you can't say what it is. What else about theoretical sagging of the trusses would cause the column to experience greater loading?


I don't know what there is left to explain. I already explained how a rigid truss only has a vertical force on the columns. I already explained that when the truss starts behaving like a catenary the force starts having a horizontal component. If you do not even understand these simple concepts, there is no way on earth you would be able to make sense of any of the physics involved.



I've explained dozens of times that the way to best estimate the amount of mass thrown from the footprints is by comparing to what is remaining in the footprints. This is the reasoning that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend, similar to how you can't see any debris in the dust cloud because all the debris in the dust cloud is blocking your view.


I must have also posted dozens of photos throughout this thread already too, probably at least half of them specifically for you, but yet here you are asking me to show photos again. Maybe there is some memory deficiency here that is also causing me to waste my time?


In that image I see maybe 10 sections of the core columns outside the footprint of the how many, couple of hundred? You nowhere explain how you go from 10 to almost all. You nowhere make it apparent those couldn't have possibly fallen there after collapse. You nowhere make an actual estimate with explanation how you do it. You analysis it nothing more than layman guessing.


Yeah, and how many times have I asked to see the specific quote for that in his paper?

Are you too lazy to open the pdf again?


Why are you discussing the contents of Bazants work if you don't even know what is in it?


So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plasti deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy acquired by the upper part of building.



The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and con- siderably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account Bažant and Zhou 2002a. This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories Figs. 1d and 2 the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou 2002a to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story or even 0.5 m. It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progres- sive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part super- fluous.



And do you want to take this to the debate forums or not?


I don't know what the debate forums are, and I don't see anything to debate really. What do want to debate about?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Here's an idea. Why don't we ask the moderators to debate the validity of Bazant's paper in the debate forums? It's a narrow topic of discussion and maybe it could offer you a more objective perspective on your apparent 'assuming 50-95% of the mass stayed within the footprints is good science' mentality.


I think this would be a fantastic idea. You got my vote if needed (never had a chance to witness any debates over in that forum). This should be good



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
So this is just another example of "I have a gut feeling that this shouldn't have happened" reasoning.


No, it's an observation based on my knowledge of known physics and engineered structures.


It wasn't a one piece column. Why would you expect it to fall like a tree? This is a common misconception of those who have watched too many disaster movies.


Again you keep saying it wasn't a one piece column, it was MANY one piece columns TIED TOGETHER with cross bracing. Your point means nothing. Yes, it should have fell in an arc starting at the point of failure. No, it is not a common misconception it is known physics.


A structure like the core, lacking lateral support, becomes unstable as it moves a few degrees off vertical. The joints are not designed for much off vertical stress and collapse occurs.


The core had it's own lateral support, called cross bracing, the 47 core columns were the VERTICAL support for the whole building. Moving off vertical is not going to cause it to collapse straight down, complete nonsense. It would move off vertical every time a stiff wind caused the building to sway.

You are just making things up again pteridine.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


We are getting nowhere Anok. The outer columns provided lateral support via the floors. Without those components, the core is unstable off vertical.
Read up on the WTC #1 and #2 building design and you may discover this.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join