Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

reply to post by bsbray11


Of course you are not proposing a theory. You are "just asking questions" or "pointing out inconsistencies in the OS" or whatever else those can't defend any alternative do.

Why am I not surprised at your lack?

reply to post by impressme


After all this time, you still cannot comprehend that no one is claiming that the steel melted. As the temperature increases, the steel becomes weaker. This is not opinion, it is a fact. Try to hold this thought as you read through the thread.

reply to post by bsbray11


That is a very non trivial question for me. When I try to visualize it I see an enormous mess of forces in all directions. Something like this. Rough guesstimate based on behavior of objects on a smaller scale would be 30 meters. But frankly, I can't really give an meaningful answer.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Of course you are not proposing a theory. You are "just asking questions" or "pointing out inconsistencies in the OS" or whatever else those can't defend any alternative do.

Why am I not surprised at your lack?

Maybe because I could be the first to tell you that the total of scientific literature surrounding 9/11 at this point is sorely unsatisfactory?


Why am I not surprised that you continue to divert from every legitimate question I ask you? What demolition theory are you basing your claims on when you say all the explosions people heard weren't indicative of explosives?

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm sure that anyone in or around the building who didn't see the planes impact would have characterized the noise as just an "explosion." Likewise, the resultant flames and structural damage could have easily set off many smaller, subsequent explosions.

Originally posted by -PLB-
That is a very non trivial question for me.

Of course, for me too, because assuming 50% to 95% of the mass landed within the footprints is critical to Bazant's whole analysis, and yet what is it really based on? Certainly not on photographic evidence.

When I try to visualize it I see an enormous mess of forces in all directions. Something like this. Rough guesstimate based on behavior of objects on a smaller scale would be 30 meters. But frankly, I can't really give an meaningful answer.

I'm not about to get into an argument about the relevance of that video, but aside from it not exploding in all directions as it fell, and actually making a relatively higher pile of material where most of its mass actually was centered, gravity as a constant force can move those pieces across the ground much more easily than it could a multi-ton piece of steel, simply because the force remains constant while the mass in those multi-ton pieces increases exponentially.


Look, you were the one who posted the Bazant papers like they proved something.

If you want to keep feigning an uncertainty about whether or not you see 50% or more of the buildings' mass still within their footprints here,








then you are also feigning uncertainty of Bazant's work. It's obvious to me that you are not looking at 50% of either building sitting within either footprint, but I can only speak for myself. Actually I can also speak for the authors of Bazant's own papers because even they admit that as much as 95% of the mass of either tower has been displaced outside of the footprints rather than within them, they just then come up with a bunch of excuses as to why they should ignore this in their model anyway. I understand others have belief systems that may cause this whole issue to be truly befuddling to them, and they can't let facts get in the way of their opinions.

But at the same time you must be uncertain of Bazant's work, because his entire analysis depends on at least 50% of the mass being retained within the footprints during the whole collapse, and as much as 95% of all the mass.


It looks like for your theories to be accurate you're going to have to come up with even more theories as to how all that mass can land within the footprints, but then scattered all over the place immediately afterwards. And pay no attention to all that debris flying out in all directions as the buildings "collapse"!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you know what a free-body diagram is, and can you solve one if I post it?

Absolutely, yes and yes. If you have some solid stuff I would like to see it. This isn't really my thing but I got interested enough earlier today to spend some time on google and found something else we can all agree on.. that a lot of people are offering a lot of contradictory information on the topic.

The structure itself is easy, without looking I'm sure that the math will show the collapse being initiated by the failure of a number of the interior columns, as the interior tries to sag the load gets pushed out, the truss connections to the exterior supports fail, the exterior walls fail and it drops.

I am also sure that the math will easily support the total failure and progressive collapse of the structure due to the massive amount of potential energy released when a dozen floors of skyscraper falls 10ft.

The dicey part is in agreeing on the details of the specific damages caused by the impacts of the airliners and assigning a potential value to the degradation of the load bearing capacity of the steel from the jetfuel fire.

To be honest I've never heard a convincing enough argument to bother checking myself, which is admittedly a fault. I would be interested to see what the math said for myself.

I would be curious to find a scenario everybody could agree on and then spend a couple hours crunching the numbers for everyone's perusal although I don't see that happening. I suffer from a poor imagination and am not interested in holographic aircraft and mini nukes while others have little faith in the absolutes proposed by math.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
The structure itself is easy, without looking I'm sure that the math will show the collapse being initiated by the failure of a number of the interior columns

You realize that math showing this is purely theoretical without a physical correlation, right? You could model anything happening to the towers just by crunching numbers. That's why physical evidence also matters.

as the interior tries to sag the load gets pushed out, the truss connections to the exterior supports fail, the exterior walls fail and it drops.

So NIST's theory basically. Can you show either where NIST demonstrated their hypothesized mechanism, or explain how a sagging truss is supposed to exert more horizontal "pulling" force on an exterior column than a room-temperature truss, considering there would be no appreciable weight difference between the two? Maybe the reason you are so sure of all of this is because you haven't looked at the things you are referring to.

I am also sure that the math will easily support the total failure and progressive collapse of the structure due to the massive amount of potential energy released when a dozen floors of skyscraper falls 10ft.

Well you can start with the posts above to PLB because that is exactly what Bazant was trying to show, and you see he can't account for the total amount of mass ejected outwards and the rapid collapse times simultaneously. He can either account for one or the other, but to account for both at the same time in his model is an impossibility.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

After all this time, you still cannot comprehend that no one is claiming that the steel melted. As the temperature increases, the steel becomes weaker. This is not opinion, it is a fact. Try to hold this thought as you read through the thread.

Are you applying that as a fact to the case of the twin towers, or a possibility. So far all we have is the possibilities, and that includes NIST, FEMA, (who called for further investigation) and 9/11 commission. That brings into question the whole gamut of theories of collapse, and should include this thread which carries a proved and possible method of application. How far is that from NIST's resolution as to the integrity of the towers in the first place as per a collision between an aircraft and a static building. NIST discounted both anecdotal accounts of the engineers who were said to have done studies on the effects of a faster, not much smaller 707 jet impact on the twin towers where fuel was the problem in terms of deaths but not in ultimate collapse, by reason of those engineers not having enough imformation into the like of softening steel, newer computer analysis as performed by NIST blah blah.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not about to get into an argument about the relevance of that video, but aside from it not exploding in all directions as it fell, and actually making a relatively higher pile of material where most of its mass actually was centered, gravity as a constant force can move those pieces across the ground much more easily than it could a multi-ton piece of steel, simply because the force remains constant while the mass in those multi-ton pieces increases exponentially.

Gravitational attraction does not exert a constant force, it results in a constant acceleration. The force scales with mass so that a heavy object falls just as fast as a light object. This is the whole point of Galileo's falling-balls experiment.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So NIST's theory basically. Can you show either where NIST demonstrated their hypothesized mechanism, or explain how a sagging truss is supposed to exert more horizontal "pulling" force on an exterior column than a room-temperature truss, considering there would be no appreciable weight difference between the two? Maybe the reason you are so sure of all of this is because you haven't looked at the things you are referring to.

Obviously a hot mass weighs the same as a cool mass. But hot steel cannot support as much as cold steel can. Hence the structural failure- but not melting of the steel.

reply to post by pteridine

After all this time, you still cannot comprehend that no one is claiming that the steel melted. As the temperature increases, the steel becomes weaker. This is not opinion, it is a fact. Try to hold this thought as you read through the thread.

I asked you some question which you completely ignored.

Yes and it all happened just under one hour?

Answer this question pteridine, what created the “extreme temperatures” to melt the steel?
We know airplane fuel does not burn at these extreme temperatures much less all the office materials and carpeting. None of the contents in the WTC could reach the melting point temperatures to melt or bend steel. Remember you are claiming that airplane jet fuel and office fires are responsible for your pancake collapse at free fall; and it all happened in less than an hour after the plane impact the WTC.

I would like to see the science that supports this impossibility?
You do not support demolition or explosions so what melted the steel less than an hour?

Since you have “rejected” every answer by the leading experts, including science, why don’t you explain how all three WTC came down at free fall?

There is no evidence that the planes hit any of the core columns either. So if the outer floor joist were damaged, then we would have witness the outer wall and floor joist breaking outward, however the core columns would have never fell. In fact some of the floors would have falling, but the trusses connected to the core columns would have stayed connected, while the outer wall would have been hanging downward.

Perhaps, talking down to posters while spewing insults is what makes one credible on ATS?

Having a debate on this topic is not a one way conversation. Furthermore if you are supporting the nonsense that the steel did not melt, but snap, or weakened, then I like to see this ridiculous conspiracy theory explained to what cause the WTC steel to become so hot and weakened the steel in less than one hour, when the steel was tested to withstand 2200 degrees heat for many hours before weakening? The WTC was on fire for an hour after impact, care to explain what caused the fire to exceed temperatures past 2200 degrees? We also would like to see some science brought to this debate or are your opinions your scientific facts to?

Originally posted by impressme
Answer this question pteridine, what created the “extreme temperatures” to melt the steel?
We know airplane fuel does not burn at these extreme temperatures much less all the office materials and carpeting. None of the contents in the WTC could reach the melting point temperatures to melt or bend steel.

Clearly the fire did not occur in isolation. In the interior of a gigantic steel-and-glass structure, with ventilation provided by blown-out floors and shafts, it is not difficult to see how temperatures could have risen sufficiently to weaken steel. In metallurgy or clay baking, one must construct a furnace so as to optimize the airflow and heat gain- in other words, the structure of your furnace has an effect on how hot it gets. A skyscraper like the WTC with a jet-fuel fire in the middle would operate much like a reverberatory furnace en.wikipedia.org... .

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Of course you are not proposing a theory. You are "just asking questions" or "pointing out inconsistencies in the OS" or whatever else those can't defend any alternative do.

Why am I not surprised at your lack?

Maybe because I could be the first to tell you that the total of scientific literature surrounding 9/11 at this point is sorely unsatisfactory?


Why am I not surprised that you continue to divert from every legitimate question I ask you? What demolition theory are you basing your claims on when you say all the explosions people heard weren't indicative of explosives?

You are not the first. You are merely repeating what is posted on the truther sites. You want answers but you provide none as do many who troll this topic.

reply to post by wirehead

one must construct a furnace so as to optimize the airflow and heat gain- in other words, the structure of your furnace has an effect on how hot it gets. A skyscraper like the WTC with a jet-fuel fire in the middle would operate much like a reverberatory furnace

Nice try.
Do you know how ridiculous your opinion sounds?
Fact: the jet fuel burned out with in minutes after impact; there are photos and videos of a woman standing in the impact hole.
So much for your oven theory.

reply to post by bsbray11


Uncertainty will always remain, no matter how much research is done. What you have to ask yourself is what can still be done, and will that satisfy me.

First start with an hypothesis. What force could have pushed the majority of mass out during collapse? What force could have pushed the majority of mass out after collapse? For the latter there is, for me, a reasonable explanation: the kinetic energy caused chaotic forces in all directions. What is your theory for the first?

reply to post by impressme


Maybe you missed it. Here it is again: The steel did not melt. No melting. No liquid steel.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why am I not surprised that you continue to divert from every legitimate question I ask you? What demolition theory are you basing your claims on when you say all the explosions people heard weren't indicative of explosives?

You are not the first. You are merely repeating what is posted on the truther sites. You want answers but you provide none as do many who troll this topic.

Yawn. I want answers, but provide none. Finally you got something right. You're not going to cry about it too are you?

Again you decline to comment on what demolition theory you are basing your claim of 'all those explosions don't sound like a demolition.

reply to post by pteridine

You are not the first. You are merely repeating what is posted on the truther sites. You want answers but you provide none as do many who troll this topic.

I love it, now we are trolls now, because we dare to question your authority and your conspiracy theory. You cannot answer my simple questions because it will prove your opinions, and conspiracy theory wrong.

Maybe you missed it. Here it is again: The steel did not melt. No melting. No liquid steel.

Avoiding hard facts are what people do when one is supporting a proven lie.

Maybe you miss this:

[color=gold]Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The first such report to be widely publicized was one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "[color=gold]literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by -PLB-
Uncertainty will always remain, no matter how much research is done. What you have to ask yourself is what can still be done, and will that satisfy me.

Well what I find I'm asking myself instead is, what degree of uncertainty would be left if a more thorough and powerful investigation were undertaken?

Thus far you are left with what little the NIST report provided, and otherwise the most valiant attempts in public domain have resulted with a model that can't simultaneously account for two observable facts of the "collapses" without producing erroneous results.

First start with an hypothesis. What force could have pushed the majority of mass out during collapse? What force could have pushed the majority of mass out after collapse? For the latter there is, for me, a reasonable explanation: the kinetic energy caused chaotic forces in all directions. What is your theory for the first?

I have no theory for either case, and the observation of the distribution of mass does not require one. In both situations I think you are pretty screwed. Earlier you suggested a multi-ton column section could travel as far as 30 meters, almost 100 feet laterally, after hitting the pile below it, but I seriously doubt it could even travel that far and of course you are just speculating anyway.

The best papers you could offer me for your collapse theories (and I at least would agree that Bazant had the best attempt of anyone) leave you grasping for further theories to explain observable facts that contradict Bazant's model and render it useless. That should put us in the same boat, of wanting a much better look into what happened here. Imo you are looking at no more than 20% of the total building mass in either footprint tops. And that's also a very conservative estimate in my opinion because it's equivalent to 1/5 of the entire tower in either footprint, and I really doubt it's even that much.