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: 73
420
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I don't suppose you understand your simplistic 2 body model is completely destroyed by the fact that the mass of the already collapsed floors adds to the mass impacting the lower section but does not add to the mass involved in the impact of the upper section.

As for your irrelevant "physics test question", its cute, but not really interesting. It just show you miss the point.
edit on 15-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
As for your irrelevant "physics test question", its cute, but not really interesting. It just show you miss the point


On one hand you claim we don't understand physics and you know it better than us.

On the other you constantly refuse to put anything you know to use and demonstrate your knowledge, like either ANOK or myself easily could.


Can you see why we think you're full of it?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Read bsbrays response.

I asked you a question to prove a point, you don't know what you're talking about. The question was an easy high school physics problem any high school kid should be able to answer, you didn't even try. Even a kid who hasn't taken physics yet should be smart enough to use 'teh net' to look it up. Seeing as that question came from 'teh net' then searching for the very site it came from is easy.

You've shown this many times before, but this is your coffin nails mate.

Google search '3. Miles Tugo and Ben Travlun', it was the first one that came up, 'momentum and conservation principle'...

www.google.com...=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=3.+Miles+Tugo+and+Ben+Travlun&cp=29&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=3.+Miles+Tug o+and+Ben+Travlun&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=eec7b1769f792670

Are you afraid of the truth PLB?


edit on 3/15/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So where did the argument that there is no horizontal force when the trusses are stiff change exactly? Yep, nowhere. The argument still stands and didn't change.

Anyway, I think your are in fact trolling, measured by the amount of smilies you use. But as long as we are both amused I guess there is no harm



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So where did the argument that there is no horizontal force when the trusses are stiff change exactly? Yep, nowhere. The argument still stands and didn't change.


I have to let out a big long sigh.

You are speaking gibberish.

Every time we ask you to show the science behind what you are saying, you start chasing your tail, one minute saying one thing, the next something contradictory, now saying you're not a teacher and don't know how to explain it to us imbeciles who can actually work the problems you constantly refuse to even try.


Anyway, I think your are in fact trolling, measured by the amount of smilies you use. But as long as we are both amused I guess there is no harm


Like someone said on one of the Japan threads, you have to laugh in order not to cry.


Look at my post above, and at ANOK's post also telling you to look at my post above, which is in turn trying to refer you to something ANOK originally posted himself!! You keep ignoring and running away from the simple opportunities to demonstrate you actually know what you're talking about. ANOK gives you a simple problem, you ignore it and balk at him. I gave you a problem, and you balked at me, and then I worked it for you and you're still running your mouth.

If anyone of any intelligence is actually following these posts then I have nothing more to say.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe if you ask a serious question that is actually relevant I will bother. I don't care what you think of my physics skills.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Maybe if you ask a serious question that is actually relevant I will bother. I don't care what you think of my physics skills.


Well let's at least make a concession.


If you don't want to continually have to embarrass yourself by running away from basic physics problems, will you please stop telling us that we don't know physics and you know better than us? Because we can actually work the problems that you are refusing to.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you call pointing out major flaws in your physics "running away", then sure, we can agree.

Major flaw in your "physics": Horizontal force with a stiff truss.
Major flaw in ANOKs "physics": Ignoring mass of already collapsed floors.

I have explained in both situation how to do it correctly.

You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.

ANOK: Add the mass of already collapse floors to the mass impacting the lower section, but do not add it to the mass involved in the impact of the top section.

But I guess that not good enough. I guess I have to make a youtube for you people to understand.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
If you call pointing out major flaws in your physics "running away", then sure, we can agree.


I was actually referring to your habit of ignoring things we post.

What a surprise, you just ignore me while I say that, too. You already know you do it then, and you do it on purpose.



Major flaw in your "physics": Horizontal force with a stiff truss.
Major flaw in ANOKs "physics": Ignoring mass of already collapsed floors.


And yet you can't answer either of our basic physics questions, or explain what you say in actual physics terms.

It's not a secret to us that you still have no clue what you are even saying. If you didn't two posts ago, you don't now.



You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.


More proof that you can't work a FBD.

I dare you to take your own advice and make a simple diagram, just using lines and text in a paint program, to illustrate what you just described.

What you just described actually makes absolutely no sense on a FBD so I already know for a fact you won't even know where to start. You'll be clueless. Go ahead and try. I would really be ashamed of myself, after running your mouth so hard.


I guess I have to make a youtube for you people to understand.


You can't even make a 2D diagram in MS paint like I did. Hell would freeze over first.



Now I'm going to start dogging you to actually demonstrate this in a diagram until you admit you're off your rocker:


You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.



If you're so confident this makes any sense at all, go ahead and make the diagram. Your turn to show us real "physics."



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It was already done correctly by Nutter.

Anyway, enough of this madness for me today. Goodnight



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Like I haven't responded to that already.
Nutter even admitted himself that what he posted was a less accurate representation of the WTC than my own diagram.



Whenever you want to resume the embarrassment, I'll still be here waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is:


Originally posted by -PLB-
You: Draw only a vertical component with a stiff truss, draw both vertical and horizontal component with a truss in cantenary action.



If this makes a lick of sense then draw it yourself.

I already drew a FBD and it took a whole 3 minutes. All you do is talk nonsense. I'll be waiting for your FBD.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And like I haven pointed out that the forces as result of the connection being a bit outside the center of gravity results in small and totally different forces (seems to me this would be rotational) which have nothing to do with the concept of sagging floors so can be ignored. Yet you somehow end up with a horizontal component only. Bravo.

The drawing by Nutter is correct, no matter if he says its not. Your drawing is just wrong, you fail.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The drawing by Nutter is correct, no matter if he says its not. Your drawing is just wrong, you fail.


I think instead of whatever you told ANOK you were, you're just from 4chan or something. You're really not even trying anymore, and it's sad. The FBD Nutter posted showed trusses resting directly on top of the perimeter columns, which was not how the trusses were actually attached, thus the difference. He acknowledged this.

You are really making a fool of yourself by trying to preach to us that we don't know physics, when we've both invited you to simple problems and you keep refusing to even try them.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I think instead of whatever you told ANOK you were, you're just from 4chan or something.



Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Malcram
 



What physics are you talking about? I haven't seen any physics as of yet, just someone claiming the physics are simple and make it impossible. Should I really accept anyones word for it? No, I require to see it. I am not a gullible layman like you, I am an engineer myself. I don't need totally dumbed down Youtube videos in order to "understand" something. Those kind of explanations hardly give any insight at all. I required a scientific study that includes the physics. Granted, I may not understand it all, but at least the person making the claims shows he has an understanding of the subject himself, making his word a bit more credible. Or he shows he doesn't have a clue of course.



I am an electrical engineer. I lack in knowledge about most of the physics that have to do with structural engineering. That doesn't mean I don't understand it when I read it per se, I just don't know it that well. Without study I won't be able to produce a basic model that describes a building collapse. I am not trained to do that.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11I think instead of whatever you told ANOK you were, you're just from 4chan or something. You're really not even trying anymore, and it's sad. The FBD Nutter posted showed trusses resting directly on top of the perimeter columns, which was not how the trusses were actually attached, thus the difference. He acknowledged this.


And so you drew a 100% horizontal force, thats really insightful. Again, the effect of the connection being slightly outside the center of gravity has no bearing on the effect caused by sagging trusses, and can thus be left out in the model. Which part of this do you not understand or disagree with, and why?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


ahhh....so this is where all the cool kids are hanging out...

Sorry I missed it...didn't mean to rain on your parade...

What I always wonder is why the gubmit would want to publish a phony test when a guy like this can prove he can cut steel and create the same resultant evidence (smoke puffs, flames, popping, and sliced steel) seen in the 911 snuff film.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
And so you drew a 100% horizontal force


I was not demonstrating gravity loads, I was demonstrating the direction the asinine forces you assume must have pulled the perimeter columns inward (and the one at an angle was obviously not strictly a horizontal force -- once again demonstrating you are a layman, and if you ever had the classes you obviously forgot them). You realize it is stupid to be placing a force there yet at the same you you actually believe that this force was really there, despite your 100% inability to do a FBD for it. You know you wouldn't even know where to begin doing a FBD to prove what you're saying, but you're too stubborn/zealous/apathetic/old/or whatever "losing" (to quote Charlie Sheen) attitude to even care that you don't know what you're talking about. To try and clarify for you again -- I was modeling the forces you believe pulled the perimeter columns inward, not gravity loads that are completely irrelevant to this whole conversation. If you think including them will change the outcome of what I showed then again -- do your own FBD. But you don't know how. So you're commenting from the peanut gallery.

I don't know whether you can't do a FBD because you never had physics and you're lying about being an engineer, or if it's because you honestly realize you have no flipping clue what you're talking about, maybe you just never listened in class or demonstrated a memory there just as horrible as you do here when you can't even remember what I just posted, but it's definitely not because you don't have enough time, when you waste so much time on this forum.



Again, the effect of the connection being slightly outside the center of gravity has no bearing on the effect caused by sagging trusses, and can thus be left out in the model. Which part of this do you not understand or disagree with, and why?


I never said a damned word about the center of gravity here, so you must have learned this from reading my posts. (Yeah right, because you can't remember what I post by your next response!)
edit on 17-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I was modeling the forces you believe pulled the perimeter columns inward, not gravity loads that are completely irrelevant to this whole conversation. If you think including them will change the outcome of what I showed then again -- do your own FBD. But you don't know how. So you're commenting from the peanut gallery.


You just totally misunderstood the whole situation, and came with a wrong diagram. It could of course partly be my lacking terminology, this both isn't my native language nor my field. But I think that isn't really the main problem. How many times have I said that there is no horizontal component to the force in the situation where the trusses do no sag? Why do you claim that I believe there is? That is just not true. It was you who came up with that. In fact, it is the main point of my critique, there is no horizontal component in the situation where the trusses do not sag. Else the whole sagging would have no effect now would it.

And it is the gravity load that causes the inward bowing. Which other force could be responsible?

Again:
Cold->Stiff trusses->No horizontal component
Hot->Trusses in catenary action->Horizontal component.


I don't know whether you can't do a FBD because you never had physics and you're lying about being an engineer, or if it's because you honestly realize you have no flipping clue what you're talking about, maybe you just never listened in class or demonstrated a memory there just as horrible as you do here when you can't even remember what I just posted, but it's definitely not because you don't have enough time, when you waste so much time on this forum.


Indeed, you don't know. The ones by Nutter are correct, there is no point in drawing it again.


I never said a damned word about the center of gravity here, so you must have learned this from reading my posts. (Yeah right, because you can't remember what I post by your next response!)


I thought it was you who wanted the model the eccentric load on the columns? I indeed did some reading on that subject as result of you bringing it up. It is not like I know all this stuff from my head. My reading let me to the conclusion that it is not relevant to model this effect. I may be totally wrong, of course, although I think I have good arguments: The involved forces are negligible (as proven by the fact the building stood for 30 years without bowing columns). And the involved forces have no significant bearing on the effect of sagging trusses.

Again, why do you disagree?
edit on 17-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
How many times have I said that there is no horizontal component to the force in the situation where the trusses do no sag?


Maybe in your native country they don't teach you that all FBD's are reflecting an instantaneous moment in time and in physics this is well understood. I was already modeling that instant when you think a horizontal force begins to exist in the FBD, and obviously not before it would have existed. So what is really wrong with the FBD? Nothing, and you have no clue what you are saying. The excuses are only getting worse and worse.


Why do you claim that I believe there is?


You're putting words in my mouth and/or lying. To even think I was making a point to model the trusses before anything happened to them is stupid. But you invent the story, and then ask me why. Again, I'm not a therapist. I can't tell you why you are having these experiences.


And it is the gravity load that causes the inward bowing. Which other force could be responsible?


And why are there additional columns bowing inward again in the first place, aside from what the impacts did? Oh yeah, according to NIST it's because the trusses were exerting some kind of horizontal PULLING FORCE on the columns. Does that answer your question, or are you still confused?


Indeed, you don't know. The ones by Nutter are correct, there is no point in drawing it again.


Nutter agrees with me himself. You have been repeatedly shown by several different examples between ANOK, myself, and Nutter to have no idea what you are talking about.


I thought it was you who wanted the model the eccentric load on the columns? I indeed did some reading on that subject as result of you bringing it up. It is not like I know all this stuff from my head. My reading let me to the conclusion that it is not relevant to model this effect. I may be totally wrong, of course, although I think I have good arguments: The involved forces are negligible (as proven by the fact the building stood for 30 years without bowing columns). And the involved forces have no significant bearing on the effect of sagging trusses


Unless you can clarify which columns and what "eccentric load" you are referring to, I'm not even sure what you're talking about modeling. The only thing I can think of is that you're thinking of the global collapse modeling or analysis that NIST never did, but that seems to be hardly what you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11Maybe in your native country they don't teach you that all FBD's are reflecting an instantaneous moment in time and in physics this is well understood. I was already modeling that instant when you think a horizontal force begins to exist in the FBD, and obviously not before it would have existed. So what is really wrong with the FBD? Nothing, and you have no clue what you are saying. The excuses are only getting worse and worse.


So both your images show the situation when the trusses are already sagging? And you agree that when the trusses do not sag, there is no horizontal component? If so, we totally agree. I would say we are making progress.



You're putting words in my mouth and/or lying. To even think I was making a point to model the trusses before anything happened to them is stupid. But you invent the story, and then ask me why. Again, I'm not a therapist. I can't tell you why you are having these experiences.


What were you trying to model then? What is the difference between the two diagrams you drew? Next to one your write "sagging effect reduces horizontal component" (which is wrong, as there is no horizontal component without sagging, so it can also not reduce). But now you say both diagrams show a situation with sagging trusses? And if not, why does the first diagram have a horizontal force?

It seems to me you just made totally wrong assumptions. You thought that a change in angle as result of the sagging changed an already existing horizontal force. This is absolutely not a correct representation of the scenario, and I never suggested it was. You came up with this, and it is wrong. The horizontal component appears only when there is sagging, and not when the trusses are stiff, as illustrated in Nutters diagrams.


And why are there additional columns bowing inward again in the first place, aside from what the impacts did? Oh yeah, according to NIST it's because the trusses were exerting some kind of horizontal PULLING FORCE on the columns. Does that answer your question, or are you still confused?


Yes, and where do you think this force comes from? Indeed, gravity.


Nutter agrees with me himself. You have been repeatedly shown by several different examples between ANOK, myself, and Nutter to have no idea what you are talking about.


Like I said, what Nutter thinks is irrelevant. His diagrams are correct, no need for me to redraw them.


Unless you can clarify which columns and what "eccentric load" you are referring to, I'm not even sure what you're talking about modeling. The only thing I can think of is that you're thinking of the global collapse modeling or analysis that NIST never did, but that seems to be hardly what you're talking about.


So let me get this straight: you do not think that modeling the forces involved with the fact that the trusses are connected to the side of the columns instead of the center is relevant? Ok. Then tell me, why exactly are Nutters diagrams wrong?
edit on 17-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join