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

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was never trying to prove 54 perimeter columns in a row were compromised. That was the erroneous garbage you came up with.

You claimed "it didn't happen". I ask for proof of that claim. Or did you mean to say "In my humble opinion it didn't happen"?

Once again, it was your claim that 54 perimeter columns in a row were compromised. If you're too lazy to back your own claim that's not my problem.

Here are some diagrams from FEMA.






Feel free to point out where you see 54 columns in a row compromised whenever you're up to the challenge.

I really wish you would learn not to make claims based on nothing, and then ask me to prove you wrong when I call you out on them. If science actually worked that way then we would have to believe magical fairy bunnies live in the core of the Earth just because no one has proved that theory wrong yet. When you decide to stop trolling and man up to your own claims then we won't have to worry about that kind of nonsense. Until then all I can do is shake my head and keep reminding you that your "reasoning" is totally out of line.

Who ever said anything about "most columns on the south face"? First it was enough to cause all the columns on those floors to buckle, then it was 54 in a row on a single face compromised, and now you just want to see "most columns on the south face." Again, they were at 1/5 their reserve capacity. Why don't you use some math for once instead of constantly trying to weasel this into a semantic argument instead of a scientific one.

We have been talking about the amount of columns that were compromised on the south wall for a while now. I didn't know you were unaware of that. Anyway, I take you don't know.

We've been talking about the reserve capacities of all of those columns for even longer and you still either don't get it or don't want to get it, or probably a healthy combination of both.

There, both impacted faces. You don't even have the intact columns down to 1/5 on a single freaking face, let alone the entire floors.

At what time was that picture taken exactly? I take it is an image of WTC 1 showing the south face. My estimate would be about an hour before collapse. Do you think it is representative for the moment just before collapse?

As far as causing an initiation, yes, because what you see there is very little changed from what you would see just prior to collapse. WTC2 collapsed first, and the most notable thing there was a stream of molten metal pouring out of the corner that looks exactly what you see in the OP video. What you don't see is the equivalent of 4/5 of the columns being totally compromised, or even 4/5 of the columns being buckled. Nor do you see 54 columns compromised in a row or any of your other nonsense that you are claiming happened.

There is no tilting without the initiation. There is no initiation with enough buckled columns. Resorting to magic now I see.

But you are unable to provide any evidence that there were not enough columns compromised.

No, you were unable to show enough columns were compromised. It's not my hypothesis, and this isn't the "prove me wrong!" game. It's NIST's hypothesis, and you're taking up their case on their behalf. So if they proved it then it should be an easy copy and paste job for you. If not, then sorry. You're just screwed I guess since it's apparently not an option to reconsider your own view of things.

Not the vertical component that's created when you put the truss at an angle, no.

You don't even know what the concept of a vertical component to a force means, do you? Or even how to solve vectors?

I understand them yes. But you don't.

Oh, okay then. Well would you mind explaining how a truss sagging, and increasing the vertical component of the connection, is supposed to simultaneously increase the horizontal force experienced by the column?

Please, since I apparently don't understand, enlighten me with just a quick calculation showing how the principle of what you're saying is even possible.

I'm going to keep asking you until you either do it or admit you don't know what the hell you're saying, too.

1) That's called "leverage."

No that is not called leverage.

Yes, it is.

2) YOU'RE ADDING WEIGHT.

What made the trusses heavier again? Getting hot?

Damn it son, you can't make your mind up about this at all.

The weight you add represents the weight of the floor.

The floor was already there. It wasn't added after the planes and fires started.

What weight is being added to increase the loads on the perimeter columns, to make them sag?

You may also first put the weight on the rope and then tie it to the trees if you like. Although I suggest the other way around as that is easier.

Yeah, because I definitely plan on going out and tying ropes around trees to prove nothing but how stupid and irrelevant the whole metaphor is.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Its funny how you always see something else than what the videos show.

And apparently sees 54 columns in a row compromised on the perimeter where no one else does.

And imagines things happening that no one saw happening, like half of the mass of each tower landing in its own footprint and then jumping out.

I think you just see what you want to see.

You nailed it.

All this hallucination, and people think we're nuts???

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was pressed on time when responding above but yeah, I don't think he really thought out his own metaphor.

I also don't think he had the WTC trusses in mind when he said that. It seems like he's trying to twist everything into petty semantic bickering that has nothing to do with actual reality. He's talking about 54 perimeter columns in a row being compromised on the perimeter, increasing vertical components of forces and reducing the horizontal components somehow increasing horizontal loads on perimeter columns and all kinds of nonsense.

So you finally understand that sagging trusses result in an inward pull force? Or do you still not get it?

Earlier when presented with the fact that Bazant's model couldn't account for both the mass ejection and the rapid collapse times, and that Bazant was forced to assume 50-95% of all the mass stayed within the footprints, he just chose to believe all the missing mass from the towers must have just rolled or bounced out of the footprints somehow after collapse, rather than think anything was wrong with Bazant's simplistic model. So I can't really be surprised by the sheer amount of faith being displayed here, and I really don't think this is ever going to go anywhere because of that unfortunately.

I nowhere said that all of the mass just rolled or bounced out. You are creating a straw man argument. I said part of it ended up in the basement, part of it fell aside during collapse (especially the perimeter columns) and part fell aside after collapse. Exact percentages are hard to estimate, especially because we can not see what is underground.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you finally understand that sagging trusses result in an inward pull force? Or do you still not get it?

It's you that doesn't get it bud.

Sagging trusses cannot produce a pull of force at all, period!

Sagging trusses by their very description are not solid beams, they are elastic from heat and will stretch out of shape before they'll do any pulling of other columns.

This is not rocket science but simple common sense.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, it was your claim that 54 perimeter columns in a row were compromised. If you're too lazy to back your own claim that's not my problem.

That is NIST's estimation, not mine. And its about the south face where the building started to collapse. Can you show that these columns on the south face were still intact moments before the collapse? If not, could it be possible that NIST is correct?

The floor was already there. It wasn't added after the planes and fires started.

Are you serious? I am giving you an example to understand how a stiff body reacts compared to a flexible body. The trusses became flexible after they were heated. Before that they were stiff.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you serious? I am giving you an example to understand how a stiff body reacts compared to a flexible body. The trusses became flexible after they were heated. Before that they were stiff.

So if you realise that how do you think 'flexible' trusses can pull in larger inflexible 'stiff' columns?

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe you can read a bit on this page: en.wikipedia.org... it may give you some insight. Especially the picture at the section Alternative analysis should give you understanding.

This picture shows the thermite burning away at the core after the outer walls had already blown outward.

reply to post by PlautusSatire


LOL.

Wait, no really?

LOL.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was pressed on time when responding above but yeah, I don't think he really thought out his own metaphor.

I also don't think he had the WTC trusses in mind when he said that. It seems like he's trying to twist everything into petty semantic bickering that has nothing to do with actual reality. He's talking about 54 perimeter columns in a row being compromised on the perimeter, increasing vertical components of forces and reducing the horizontal components somehow increasing horizontal loads on perimeter columns and all kinds of nonsense.

So you finally understand that sagging trusses result in an inward pull force? Or do you still not get it?

I still don't get it, and I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate how changing the angle of the truss connection because of it sagging increases the loads on the perimeter column, with a simple free body diagram and calculations to go with it.


I'll make it easier on you.

All you have to do, is take 2 forces, both pulling on a perimeter column. Let's say the force is 1000 N. It could be any force you like though, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference, so long as they are the same force in both examples. In the first example, the force of 1000 N is pulling perfectly horizontal on the column. In the second example, change the angle to what you think the sagging trusses would have produced. Then just show the horizontal components of each force, and you have exactly what force is actually being experienced by the column. Any of this ringing a bell? Questions? Criticisms? Don't know what the hell I'm talking about?


Put up or shut up. You said you understand FBD's and vectors and I don't, so let's see it in action.

I nowhere said that all of the mass just rolled or bounced out. You are creating a straw man argument. I said part of it ended up in the basement,

Wrong again. I told you before that the perimeter and core structure at the ground level was still intact. How did it go through that and wind up in the basement? More magic I guess.

part of it fell aside during collapse (especially the perimeter columns)

More like especially most of the total buildings' masses by far.

and part fell aside after collapse.

"fell aside after collapse"

Yeah, and how exactly does something "fall aside" across a whole range of 10 to over 100 meters again, filling all that radius?

Originally posted by -PLB-
That is NIST's estimation, not mine. And its about the south face where the building started to collapse. Can you show that these columns on the south face were still intact moments before the collapse? If not, could it be possible that NIST is correct?

You're arguing on NIST's behalf. If they showed this buckling then all you have to do, is show what they showed. You're still trying to place the burden on me for everything, including the claims you make, and I don't play it that way.

The floor was already there. It wasn't added after the planes and fires started.

Are you serious? I am giving you an example to understand how a stiff body reacts compared to a flexible body. The trusses became flexible after they were heated. Before that they were stiff.

Are you serious? Again, where did the extra weight come from in the WTC, to compare with your example?


I'll be waiting for that free body diagram. I'm calling your bluff. I figure you couldn't do what you claimed to be able to if your life depended on it.

reply to post by bsbray11


To get an understanding of the involved forces when trusses sag I refer to the wiki article about catenary I linked to earlier. That should give a basic understanding of the horizontal forces.

As for me defending NIST, I never claimed it to be the absolute truth. I only claim it is a possible, even likely scenario. You, on the other hand, claimed it didn't happen. You haven't shown any evidence contradicting their explanation as of yet. So how can you claim it didn't happen?

And about the debris, you say "How did it go through that and wind up in the basement? More magic I guess." Because it is a tube frame design. It didn't need to go through it, it just needed to go past it. Something that does sounds like magic to me is that almost all of the mass would be ejected. There is no obvious mechanism for that.

Originally posted by -PLB-
To get an understanding of the involved forces when trusses sag I refer to the wiki article about catenary I linked to earlier. That should give a basic understanding of the horizontal forces.

Or... a free body diagram.

Come on, what happened to this?

Originally posted by -PLB-

You don't even know what the concept of a vertical component to a force means, do you? Or even how to solve vectors?

I understand them yes. But you don't.

It's time to put your money where your mouth is. Anyone who knows any engineering science at all has to learn this stuff in physics 101. It's the most basic of the basic.


I explained above all you'd have to do, and you ignored me. I take that as meaning "I'm totally lost and regret ever saying that I could solve vectors and justify my faith "

I don't guess you're going to admit you were just blowing smoke up everyone's asses before I have to show you the math that proves you wrong about sagging trusses weighing more because of the angle they're "pulling" from, huh?

As for me defending NIST, I never claimed it to be the absolute truth. I only claim it is a possible, even likely scenario.

In other words you can't prove any of it. I have seen nothing to show enough buckling to compromise the whole perimeter structure when it was only at 1/5 of its reserve capacity prior to all this. That reserve capacity is the part you keep ignoring because it's not your friend.

And about the debris, you say "How did it go through that and wind up in the basement? More magic I guess." Because it is a tube frame design. It didn't need to go through it, it just needed to go past it. Something that does sounds like magic to me is that almost all of the mass would be ejected. There is no obvious mechanism for that.

You don't need to think of a mechanism to prove it happened when all you have to do is watch a collapse video and the massive debris ejection is in your face.

Last time I pointed that out you whined about how you couldn't see anything because of the massive debris cloud. Uhhhhmmm, HELLO?

And one other thing you could tell about it is that flying out sideways, it definitely wasn't heading for the basements. How convenient you would want to say all the debris missing for Bazant's analysis is where we can't see it, even though the structure on top of it was still intact. I told you before to look up photos from the basement excavations. It was mostly destroyed concrete and stone aggregate, ie the concrete laid into the foundation. Not all the steel from the entire building that used to be above it. For that you have to look around Ground Zero like in the diagram FEMA drew for you. They were trying to tell you something you know.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Maybe you can read a bit on this page: en.wikipedia.org... it may give you some insight. Especially the picture at the section Alternative analysis should give you understanding.

edit on 12-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Oh dear, I am really in a dilemma as to whether I should continue taking you seriously, and even bother you with a reply, this discussion is so completely over your head.

What on gods earth has cantenary got to do with sagging trusses?

I'm wondering if you even understand what a sagging truss is, and what happens to steel when it is hot enough to be malleable?

Another priceless post from PLB. How can someone make such irrelevant connections over and over again?

(Sorry if I sound harsh but you came here pretending to be an expert with something to add, when it's obvious you're not and you don't.)

Any buckling had to be asymmetric at best, I have no idea why plb posted his "Chain link" as it is totally irrelevant anyway. The trusses were not a piece of chewed bubblegum at the mercy of heat and gravity, and neither were they a single entity. above them they had a corragated floorpan on which the concrete, which is an aggregate of stone and sand, (silica as the shower gels put it) and whatever specialist mix, not cement, was poured, they also had bridges of a lighter structure joining them together at intervals, east/west as you might say. The concrete was tied in some fashion to the floorpans, and therefore part of the rigidity north/south. So all were tied together. Concrete can't be melted... well it can, but at volcanic temperatures. In any case the concrete turned to dust.

reply to post by -PLB-

I only claim it is a possible, even likely scenario.

That’s interesting, because no real scientist outside of NIST supports NIST findings.
Fact: NIST report is so flawed that it can not stand up to real science.

Fact: Most experts in the scientific community support demolition and that is what real science supports.
I see few people on ATS supporting the ignorance you write. If what you are saying was so true I would be joining you. But you and I know how ridiculous your argument is.

Either you’re in disbelief that our government might have been involved in murdering 3,000 innocent Americans by doing a false flag operation, or you are just trolling.

If it is the first one, then I can tell you, you have every right to be angry, it will ease up when you come to understand it. But, the frustration never goes away.

reply to post by -PLB-


Study this, PLB:




It's the vector math that totally refutes your claim that sagging increases the horizontal force experienced by the perimeter column.

Looks like you're going to have to make up some theory about how the trusses gained tons of weight as they heated after all.

And yes, your rant about tying ropes to trees was totally irrelevant. Though it was entertaining.


If the math there looks like gibberish to you (as I think it might) then check this page for education: zonalandeducation.com...

Let's take this all one step at a time. First, let's visualize the x-component and the y-component of d1. Here is that diagram showing the x-component in red and the y-component in green:

The two components along with the original vector form a right triangle. Therefore, we can use right triangle trigonometry to find the lengths of the two components. That is, we can use the 'SOH-CAH-TOA' type of definitions for the sine, cosine, and tangent trigonometry functions.

So you don't have to take my word on the math, if you are able to decipher that page, but they do take it "all one step at a time" for you.

Originally posted by smurfy
In any case the concrete turned to dust.

And of course that one fact by itself disproves the floors caused the collapse.

Following Newtons laws of motion the floors couldn't do the destroying of floors and be destroyed themselves, by themselves.

There would have to have been some complete floors after the collapse finished, unless you believe the stupid crush up hypothesis, what's doing the crushing if the floors are being crushed, they can't do both. The last crusher, at least, would survive.

Originally posted by bsbray11
In other words you can't prove any of it. I have seen nothing to show enough buckling to compromise the whole perimeter structure when it was only at 1/5 of its reserve capacity prior to all this. That reserve capacity is the part you keep ignoring because it's not your friend.

Nope, I can't prove it. Nor can you prove the opposite. There is evidence of columns that bowed in significantly. That is proof that there is some mechanism that can do this. There is no reason to believe this only took place with the visible columns and not with the ones obscured by smoke. So there is no reason to believe that NIST's explanation is impossible.

You don't need to think of a mechanism to prove it happened when all you have to do is watch a collapse video and the massive debris ejection is in your face.

It is next to impossible to estimate the mass of a debris cloud where mostly dust is visible, so I don't see any use in further speculation.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Study this, PLB:

It's the vector math that totally refutes your claim that sagging increases the horizontal force experienced by the perimeter column.

Looks like you're going to have to make up some theory about how the trusses gained tons of weight as they heated after all.

And yes, your rant about tying ropes to trees was totally irrelevant. Though it was entertaining.


If the math there looks like gibberish to you (as I think it might) then check this page for education: zonalandeducation.com...

Let's take this all one step at a time. First, let's visualize the x-component and the y-component of d1. Here is that diagram showing the x-component in red and the y-component in green:

The two components along with the original vector form a right triangle. Therefore, we can use right triangle trigonometry to find the lengths of the two components. That is, we can use the 'SOH-CAH-TOA' type of definitions for the sine, cosine, and tangent trigonometry functions.

So you don't have to take my word on the math, if you are able to decipher that page, but they do take it "all one step at a time" for you.

edit on 12-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

That's brilliant, (and in context) it's the chewing gum I was thinking of in a way.