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

reply to post by bsbray11


Was that post the argument ripping part? So you believe that a demolition can be done bit by bit. An explosion here and there until a key piece is compromised and down it all comes.
This means that you would have to know, in detail, the damage done by the planes and fires so you could size and carefully place the charges to start the collapse. So the plan might be to have a suicide demolition team on the top floor of each building and when the planes hit, have them go into action somehow. Setting charges in a fire could be tough but theory is theory. The second teams would be below the impacts and set whatever charges were necessary below and then get out. Is this your theory?

reply to post by bsbray11


What are you talking about? Why do I need to come with actual numbers? What does Bazant have to do with this? You said there wasn't an explanation for this in the NIST report. I said there was, and pointed to a summery. I am not going to defend the details of the report because a) I don't know them and b) may not agree myself. Go read the report yourself, there is lots of information on damage to columns.

reply to post by smurfy


Bazants model is an idealized representation only to prove the collapse progressed. It doesn't account for what actually happened, and Bazant acknowledges that. So attacking the model on that account is useless.

Originally posted by pteridine
Was that post the argument ripping part?

Yeah, or just in general any time I ask you a direct question and you intentionally ignore it to rant about something else instead, that's another big indicator.

So you believe that a demolition can be done bit by bit. An explosion here and there until a key piece is compromised and down it all comes.
This means that you would have to know, in detail, the damage done by the planes and fires so you could size and carefully place the charges to start the collapse.

No, it wouldn't. If they severed the core structure alone, what do you think would happen? The building would keep standing anyway? That's all they would have to attack, and all they would have had to have known about the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires, was that it wouldn't be enough to bring them down alone, which even the building engineers were confident about.

So the plan might be to have a suicide demolition team on the top floor of each building and when the planes hit, have them go into action somehow. Setting charges in a fire could be tough but theory is theory. The second teams would be below the impacts and set whatever charges were necessary below and then get out. Is this your theory?

Not hardly, but with that much creative imagination it's no wonder you're able to believe the official story.

Originally posted by -PLB-
What are you talking about? Why do I need to come with actual numbers?

Because otherwise your argument has nothing to do with science at all?

Why do you think scientists and engineers bother to learn about yield strengths and safety factors and various formulas in the first place? Because it's a fun way to kill time between making stuff up?

What does Bazant have to do with this?

Wow, you were the one to bring the paper up in the first place and you don't see the relevance to what you are saying would happen when that mass fell? Look at the paper again. He's trying to model (in an extremely simplified way) exactly why NIST didn't try to model or analyze in any way.

You said there wasn't an explanation for this in the NIST report.

There's another clue as to what Bazant has to do with this then, but I don't guess you picked up on that huh?

Here's what I said again:

To predict what happened at the WTC with a model like Bazant's, even if you could show the columns were overloaded, you would have to go way above and beyond just loading it beyond its yield strength, to forces required for completely smashing and shattering the columns apart into sections of however many feet.

What's Bazant's paper about? The feasibility of sustaining a "progressive collapse" based on kinetic energy assessments alone. I thought you already knew this.

What loading is he predicting onto the columns? Do I have to explain the relevance of that too? You are saying the columns were destroyed as observed just by that mass dropping on them right? So I assume you're trying to say there are numbers to back that up somewhere? Like...... in Bazant's paper maybe?

I said there was, and pointed to a summery.

Which only showed you had no idea what you were even linking to, because a brief summary of their entire report is not the specific meat and potatoes I am actually asking you for. Come on, have you read the NIST report? Because it really doesn't seem like it to me.

I am not going to defend the details of the report because a) I don't know them and b) may not agree myself. Go read the report yourself, there is lots of information on damage to columns.

Wow again... You admit not knowing the details of the report and that you may even disagree with them, and then tell me to go read it anyway.

This is like arguing about the Bible with a fundamentalist Christian.... who's never read the Bible.

I could tell you that I've already seen what they show in their report about column damage, but since it didn't take the first 2 or 3 times I told you I read their report then it's been pretty much proven to me that you aren't listening and I might as well be talking to a wall.

How about you go read it and realize they don't even try to analyze the part of the collapse you are referring to, before you tell me to go look at something I already know better than you do?

reply to post by bsbray11


First you show you have no knowledge about what is in the NIST report whatsoever, and now for some reason you want to discuses the specifics with me. Why do you think I am even qualified to discuss it? I understand the basic explanation, but I think some areas in the NIST report are not very clear, or maybe I just don't understand them. I am not an expert. If you want to discuss the specifics, find someone who knows all the details and is willing to defend them. I have no such ambition. If your goal is to convince me that there must have been a government plot because some parts of the NIST report are wrong or incomplete, you are going to fail. You can only convince me of that by showing positive evidence. Showing NIST is wrong only shows that NIST is wrong. You are sounding like a creationist trying to prove that ET is wrong by highlighting a specific point, claim it invalidates the complete theory, and conclude that therefor creation must be right.

reply to post by bsbray11


So, in general, you have a theory. "Some people destroyed some part of the core in some fashion or another using demolition charges. Those people knew where the planes would hit and prepositioned the demolition charges. Those same people knew the speed and direction of each aircraft and exactly what damage would be done and where, so that they could size their charges. Then, the charges would be set off over a long period of time so that no one would attribute the explosions to demolition."

Is this your theory?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by smurfy

 

Bazants model is an idealized representation only to prove the collapse progressed. It doesn't account for what actually happened, and Bazant acknowledges that. So attacking the model on that account is useless.

He changed his mind, long before you it seems, in any case it is mostly irrelevant now. Why don't you go and figure out how the concrete became dust, maybe it wasn't cured right in the first place, maybe.....

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11

 

First you show you have no knowledge about what is in the NIST report whatsoever, and now for some reason you want to discuses the specifics with me. Why do you think I am even qualified to discuss it? I understand the basic explanation, but I think some areas in the NIST report are not very clear, or maybe I just don't understand them.

You start by claiming bsbray had no knowledge of the NIST report, and then admit you're not qualified to understand or discus it?

And yet you are here supporting the OS and completely ignoring any evidence that contradicts it?

What happened to you being an engineer?

This is typical of debunkers, you come here thinking you can act like an expert because you read something online you can parrot, and then you realise you're over your head and start back peddling, making excuses, and completely contradicting all you've claimed about yourself.

You're wasting everyone's time...

Originally posted by -PLB-
First you show you have no knowledge about what is in the NIST report whatsoever,

Again with this lie, and what a great way to open a post.

and now for some reason you want to discuses the specifics with me.

Again, look through my posting history.

I've been talking about specifics within the NIST report since before you were even a member here.

In case you didn't know, it's supposed to be the final investigation on the WTC Towers as authorized by Congress. If you're going to have faith in the official story, and especially if you claimed anywhere to these other guys that you're an engineer (which there is no way in hell I'm believing that now anyway) then you might want to actually read it.

Why do you think I am even qualified to discuss it? I understand the basic explanation, but I think some areas in the NIST report are not very clear, or maybe I just don't understand them.

Then you don't understand the "official story" either and you're not qualified to argue about it with me.

I am not an expert. If you want to discuss the specifics, find someone who knows all the details and is willing to defend them.

And yet you still choose to believe what you say must have some merit anyway. That's called faith, and I'm not a big fan when we're talking about the reason 3000+ people died in NY, plus hundreds of thousands more in the Middle East and counting. Justifying something like that with faith is a little too Nazi for my taste.

Originally posted by pteridine
So, in general, you have a theory. "Some people destroyed some part of the core in some fashion or another using demolition charges. Those people knew where the planes would hit and prepositioned the demolition charges. Those same people knew the speed and direction of each aircraft and exactly what damage would be done and where, so that they could size their charges. Then, the charges would be set off over a long period of time so that no one would attribute the explosions to demolition."

Is this your theory?

The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found. Theory is different from a working hypothesis, which is a theory that hasn't been fully tested; that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory.

en.wikipedia.org...


No, that is not a theory at all.

"Working hypothesis" would be more accurate, and so would "hypothetical." Basically meaning, since there has been no investigation into these things, the logical consequence is that we would also have no hard evidence at this time, aside from what a some civilian scientists, engineers and other researchers have shown. Also weighing into the equation is the complete absurdity of the hypotheses provided by FEMA and NIST, and the lack of data supporting that, that would actually make it even a theory.

"Demolition charges" would also have to be defined extremely broadly, because beyond the thermate charges demonstrated in the OP of this thread, I have no reason to believe any particular device or even type of device was used, except that there was something causing an awful damned lot of explosions throughout that morning in all 3 buildings. I have no reason to assume I know how they were configured, when, or anything else to that effect.


But if you are going to trash even the idea of a demolition, this is what you have to work with. Are you going to explain to me how severing the core columns wouldn't immediately initiate a collapse in the weakest area of the perimeter structure?

reply to post by bsbray11


It has nothing to do with faith. The NIST report offers by far the best and most detailed explanation. Any other explanation I have read until now was extremely superficial and completely lacking evidence. There just isn't any sensible alternative at the moment. Most truthers don't come any further than "NIST is wrong we need a new investigation". Some try to create an alternative hypothesis but quickly get stuck by huge contradictory evidence. And when you make them aware of that they often get angry, just look at the reactions of Plube.

As for calling me a liar, you claimed that "the collapse didn't initiate with floors falling" followed by "So much for NIST's theory". You still stand by that?
Then I showed you they do explain that how the top section came down all at once:

The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.

Sure, not all columns failed at the exact same instance, but if that is what you claim you are wrong. They all failed in a very short time, stating on the south face, progressing rapidly to the north. Perfectly conform photographic evidence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It has nothing to do with faith. The NIST report offers by far the best and most detailed explanation.

But you just said you don't understand the "details" of it, and don't even want to look at them and discuss them because you may even disagree with them. So in other words, you only have faith that it's "by far the best and most detailed explanation." You have no actual experience of this.

Any other explanation I have read until now was extremely superficial and completely lacking evidence.

That's actually a great characterization of the NIST report, but I guess you wouldn't know, and already said you don't want to look at their report or talk about that. What were you saying about creationists?

Most truthers don't come any further than "NIST is wrong we need a new investigation". Some try to create an alternative hypothesis but quickly get stuck by huge contradictory evidence.

Again, you wouldn't know, because you don't even know what "evidence" is in the NIST report in the first place, and the only other investigative report about the WTC you have to go off of is FEMA.

As for calling me a liar, you claimed that "the collapse didn't initiate with floors falling" followed by "So much for NIST's theory". You still stand by that?

Let's see. Are you even reading my posts? Apparently, no, or else you would already know the answer to this as I explained it in the post immediately following it. Learn to read.

Then I showed you they do explain that how the top section came down all at once:

The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.

That is not an explanation.

I was asking to see evidence that a sufficient number of perimeter columns were buckled to explain this. I posted this more than once too. Why don't you read what I post for once?

Originally posted by bsbray11
But if you are going to trash even the idea of a demolition, this is what you have to work with. Are you going to explain to me how severing the core columns wouldn't immediately initiate a collapse in the weakest area of the perimeter structure?

If you are going to promote the idea of a demolition what you have to work with is absolutely no evidence of demolition. Are you going to explain to me how and where the core columns were severed and what evidence you have of it?
You also said that the widely spaced explosions during the fires were indicative of demolition because you thought a demolition could be done piecemeal. So far, you have not shown how that might be done.

reply to post by pteridine


If you are supporting the OS of the WTC then, you have failed to prove it true.
If you are not supporting the OS of the WTC and demolition, then what is your point?
Other than the pseudo science that few debunkers like creating, I like to know what you ”think” heated all that steel “in an hour” and blasted steel beams over 500 feet away into other buildings?

Originally posted by pteridine
If you are going to promote the idea of a demolition what you have to work with is absolutely no evidence of demolition.

I'm not "promoting" it, you were the one who asked about it.

And you asked because you said it would be impossible to bring the buildings down with "random" explosions that didn't fit some pre-determined pattern, which obviously isn't true.

Are you going to explain to me how and where the core columns were severed and what evidence you have of it?

Nope. I'm not pushing that argument, because I wouldn't know what you ask. Maybe you missed the part about none of this ever being considered during an investigation. Or maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not here to give conclusions, I'm here to show how data is lacking. Take your pick, but you are obviously missing something.

You also said that the widely spaced explosions during the fires were indicative of demolition because you thought a demolition could be done piecemeal. So far, you have not shown how that might be done.

That was in response to you saying it couldn't be done that way, which I see no evidence of, and it doesn't even make sense. If an explosion can cause damage to the structure of a building, it's going to cause damage whether it goes off in a nice, orderly sequence or not.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You also said that the widely spaced explosions during the fires were indicative of demolition because you thought a demolition could be done piecemeal. So far, you have not shown how that might be done.

That was in response to you saying it couldn't be done that way, which I see no evidence of, and it doesn't even make sense. If an explosion can cause damage to the structure of a building, it's going to cause damage whether it goes off in a nice, orderly sequence or not.

It will cause damage but not predictable damage. When linear shaped charges are used, there is maximum predictable effect for minimum use of explosive. The calculations for demolition are approximate and always err on the too-much rather than on the too-little side. When the timing is close together, errors tend to be swamped by the speed of demolition. When charges are temporally displaced over a relatively long period of time, errors become more noticeable and demolition becomes much less predictable because the effects of a single charge cannot be extrapolated over time. This means that the building may fall sooner than planned and may not collapse as planned.

Originally posted by pteridine
It will cause damage but not predictable damage.

I don't believe you have any evidence for this claim.

When charges are temporally displaced over a relatively long period of time, errors become more noticeable

What kind of noticeable errors, specifically? Are you actually admitting that symmetry, keeping the building from falling over on one side or another, is hard to achieve with building demolitions?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
It will cause damage but not predictable damage.

I don't believe you have any evidence for this claim.

When charges are temporally displaced over a relatively long period of time, errors become more noticeable

What kind of noticeable errors, specifically? Are you actually admitting that symmetry, keeping the building from falling over on one side or another, is hard to achieve with building demolitions?

Errors in charge. When the demolitions are close enough together in time and one charge does more than expected, the collapse is still predictable. When those same demolitions are spread out in time, the collapse becomes less predictable and may be premature. That is why charges in building implosions are set off quickly rather than a more leisurely pace.
Does your core demolition hypothesis say that the entire core is demolished or just that the hinge point needs help and gravity does the rest?

Originally posted by pteridine
Errors in charge. When the demolitions are close enough together in time and one charge does more than expected, the collapse is still predictable. When those same demolitions are spread out in time, the collapse becomes less predictable and may be premature. That is why charges in building implosions are set off quickly rather than a more leisurely pace.

I heard you the first time, but this still isn't an explanation of why you think this is the case.

You said,

When the demolitions are close enough together in time and one charge does more than expected, the collapse is still predictable. When those same demolitions are spread out in time, the collapse becomes less predictable and may be premature.

What are you talking about? Don't just repeat yourself; be specific as to why this must physically be the case.

Does your core demolition hypothesis say that the entire core is demolished or just that the hinge point needs help and gravity does the rest?

Stop trying to formalize a hypothetical. "It" doesn't say either because I would have no way of knowing.