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

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not to mention I haven't seen any data to indicate the perimeter columns lost that much strength from being heated anyway.

Not to mention NIST actually did some tests on these columns and found NO columns held a temparature of more than 250C for more than a few minutes.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are too many problems, too little evidence, and no reproduction of that alleged mechanism whatsoever.

This is exactly the problem I have with CD. Where is the evidence, how was it pulled off. The fact that sagging floors cause a pull force has been reproduced many times. The mechanism is proven, just go through the Google search results I posted earlier. The question is if the force was large enough.

Not hardly because we've already shown he has to change parameters to make them unrealistic to get these results at all. When he accounts for the ejected mass for example, all those other correlations go right out the window. And that's just one thing he has to assume to get his model to work. You've already admitted yourself that it was a simplistic model.

The fact there is acceleration at all doesn't need any unrealistic assumptions. The assumptions you refer to were made in order to match the observed fall speed.

Originally posted by Nutter

If the truss connections are failing, then wouldn't the columns experience a large section of unbraced length? When a column is unbraced, Euler buckling comes in to play. Why was Euler buckling dismissed?

It wasn't. It was found to not be able to induce buckling. But longer unbraced lengths are buckled easier.

To be sure, the sequence is misunderstood by many. For 1, it went like this:

1- Impacts redistribute loads, although not evenly throughout the structure.
2- heating makes the core columns thermally expand, and they take up more of the overall loads. The higher loads and elevated temps cause them to develop plastic and creep strains that exceed the thermal expansion, which then cause them to shorten by about 2 inches. The loads are then distributed to the ext columns by the hat truss.
3- trusses heat quickly and push out the ext columns by a slight amount, and it's found to not be enough to cause ext column buckling, since they haven't heated up enough, nor have the loads been distributed onto them yet from the core shortening. As the trusses continue to heat and fail, they buckle at the web diagonals close to the core columns (so plastic deformation is the answer to your previous question) resulting in pull in forces on the ext columns. Pg 379/470 in NCSTAR 1-6 - the executive summary - has both a picture of where the buckling occurred, and an equation for determining the amount of pull in forces from the catenary action.
4- by this time, the cores had shortened and redistributed the loads to the ext columns, which had started to heat some as well. They also now underwent moderate temp, high load creep, which resulted in an increasing buckling over time.


2's disconnected also, but since the impact was more off center, a higher %age of load was transferred to adjoining columns. So the sequence is similar, but different in its detail.

Originally posted by bsbray11

If the core structure's load-bearing capacity were compromised in any way then one result would be the buckling of perimeter columns via the hat truss. That doesn't mean those columns buckling were the cause of the collapse, it just means they would be a symptom of the core being compromised.

Yes, it was compromised by fire. First thermal expansion, then by shortening, which was resulted in the ext columns taking up additional load.

The core structure carried a critical amount of the building loads, and if it failed, it would try to transfer its loads onto the perimeter columns via the hat truss. That's just how it was.

Exactly right.

So when it comes to buckling perimeter columns, that's when the hypotheses come into play. What caused that? So far I am still not seeing any way the trusses could have caused it

The trusses alone didn't cause it. Increased loads from the failing core, distributed to them by the hat truss, and thermal heating also contributed.

Not to mention the number of buckled perimeter columns by themselves aren't enough to cause a global collapse, and when WTC1 started falling, we know its core structure was already compromised at the same time the perimeter was. So that's one more "clue" as to what was really happening, for anyone smart enough to realize that.

Yes. NIST explains it quite nicely.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are too many problems, too little evidence, and no reproduction of that alleged mechanism whatsoever.

This is exactly the problem I have with CD.

Well here's the difference. The government already did an investigation on a reason for collapse other than CD, and tried their damnedest, and it still has no evidence and the best (and only) hypothesis they had to offer doesn't even make sense.

They ignored the possibility of CD from the start, never tested for any explosives, totally ignored all the witness testimony of explosives, etc.

What you suspect happened has already had its run and come back with nothing. We haven't even had a run on our suspicions yet, just a bunch of petty bickering on internet forums from people like you, for 10 years, and still you haven't proved anything.

Not hardly because we've already shown he has to change parameters to make them unrealistic to get these results at all. When he accounts for the ejected mass for example, all those other correlations go right out the window. And that's just one thing he has to assume to get his model to work. You've already admitted yourself that it was a simplistic model.

The fact there is acceleration at all doesn't need any unrealistic assumptions. The assumptions you refer to were made in order to match the observed fall speed.

Look at what you are saying. The assumptions Bazant took that contradicted real data, were done just to force his model to match reality. That's not science.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes, it was compromised by fire. First thermal expansion, then by shortening, which was resulted in the ext columns taking up additional load.

Again, great hypothesis, but where's the evidence?

The trusses alone didn't cause it. Increased loads from the failing core, distributed to them by the hat truss, and thermal heating also contributed.

According to NIST the core didn't fail in any way that was significant to the collapse initiation. If you have some excerpt from their report indicating that a core failure mechanism was critical to all this then I'd love to see it, in your next post.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not to mention I haven't seen any data to indicate the perimeter columns lost that much strength from being heated anyway.

Not to mention NIST actually did some tests on these columns and found NO columns held a temparature of more than 250C for more than a few minutes.

I notice no one wants to touch that.

Even NIST's own data contradicts their hypothesis, which is probably the leading reason why they never even bothered to reproduce it physically. They knew it wouldn't actually work.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are too many problems, too little evidence, and no reproduction of that alleged mechanism whatsoever.

This is exactly the problem I have with CD. Where is the evidence, how was it pulled off. The fact that sagging floors cause a pull force has been reproduced many times. The mechanism is proven, just go through the Google search results I posted earlier. The question is if the force was large enough.

Not hardly because we've already shown he has to change parameters to make them unrealistic to get these results at all. When he accounts for the ejected mass for example, all those other correlations go right out the window. And that's just one thing he has to assume to get his model to work. You've already admitted yourself that it was a simplistic model.

The fact there is acceleration at all doesn't need any unrealistic assumptions. The assumptions you refer to were made in order to match the observed fall speed.

(1) I have to ask how the sagging floors relates to the twin towers exactly. (2) How was it pulled off, (and you have to consider that the exact scenario as happened goes back, and speculated on, to mid 90's or earlier), easy and with any medium capable. Ask yourself how many unused floors there were vacant in the towers, or even any floors that were never used..aka empty of everything, how many floors had private links,(stairs) to each other. I don't mind that you disagree with the idea of other than a jet ultimately brought down the towers, but if it did, then the towers were unfit for the purpose

reply to post by bsbray11


When I need to pick between an explanation that has an adequate amount of evidence and does a limited amount of assumptions or one that has no evidence and makes the wildest assumption, I pick the first. Even if the first has issues, there is no reason to choose one with even more issues over it. And thats what I see happening. There is an extreme bias toward the government, large part of the scientific community, rescue workers, WTC employees, clean up crews,etc being in on it.

reply to post by bsbray11


A lack of evidence isn't contradictorily to a hypothesis.

reply to post by smurfy


(1) It relates to how collapse imitated according to NIST. (2) What kind of explosives, where is the evidence of them, who was involved, how did anyone keep silence, why do such a tricky operation in the first place (why not just the planes). The list with speculation and assumptions is long. The list with evidence is short.

Originally posted by -PLB-
When I need to pick between an explanation that has an adequate amount of evidence

What evidence is that again? You haven't shown any yet.

There is an extreme bias toward the government, large part of the scientific community, rescue workers, WTC employees, clean up crews,etc being in on it.

I for one never said all that.

Originally posted by -PLB-
A lack of evidence isn't contradictorily to a hypothesis.

Didn't you just say there was an "adequate" amount of evidence? Which is it? And what's the evidence, if there even is any?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well here's the difference. The government already did an investigation on a reason for collapse other than CD, and tried their damnedest, and it still has no evidence and the best (and only) hypothesis they had to offer doesn't even make sense.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how expanding trusses cause inward "pulling" forces and anything that actually shows any such force could cause perimeter columns to buckle.

reply to post by bsbray11


There is evidence of a plane hitting the building, there is evidence of intense fire, there is evidence of severe damage as result of those two.

As for explosives, what evidence do we have?

Originally posted by -PLB-
There is evidence of a plane hitting the building, there is evidence of intense fire, there is evidence of severe damage as result of those two.

I don't dispute that, but "severe" doesn't mean it's going to result in what we saw.

As for explosives, what evidence do we have?

What investigation has been done of the many explosions reported?

I just got through explaining, your line of thinking has had its investigation and it culminated with the NIST report, which you even refrain from substantiating when I ask you specifically where any evidence is for their hypothesis.

reply to post by bsbray11


I wonder what kind of evidence you require and how you think its going to be obtained. Do you think there is still evidence out there to be discovered that is going to convince you of anything? I don't believe that at all. If there was evidence of explosives, someone not part of the conspiracy would have found it by now. The likelihood of this whole CD hypothesis is just extremely slim.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I wonder what kind of evidence you require and how you think its going to be obtained.

Something that satisfies the scientific method. With science.

If you think NIST is as good as it gets, then apparently you think the scientific method is some completely unobtainable goal. I don't.

Do you think there is still evidence out there to be discovered that is going to convince you of anything?

I believe there's a lot of evidence out there that I haven't seen yet, that would be very convincing. Convincing of what, I can't say, until it's actually demonstrated.

I don't believe that at all. If there was evidence of explosives, someone not part of the conspiracy would have found it by now. The likelihood of this whole CD hypothesis is just extremely slim.

Let's see, someone not part of the conspiracy would have found it by.... Wait... Oh damn, wow, hold on a second. I just re-discovered the OP of this thread!!!!

Originally posted by -PLB-
As for explosives, what evidence do we have?

My friend, a simple Google or Youtube search will net you plenty of results for this. Whether or not you choose to accept them is up to you of course.

There seem to be numerous reports of witnesses in NYC on 9/11 who claim to have heard explosions. This includes civilains, firefighters, and I believe police officers as well. There is also plenty of speculation as to exactly WHAT these "explosions" are. Some will go as far as to claim that they are the sounds of floors collapsing on each other (laugh out loud).

I am confident that there are plenty of threads and posts here on ATS which can give you some more info on this, though I'm somewhat surprised you haven't heard or read of this already.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Let's see, someone not part of the conspiracy would have found it by.... Wait... Oh damn, wow, hold on a second. I just re-discovered the OP of this thread!!!!

The original post said only that Cole had discovered that thermate would do what it was designed to do. There is no evidence for CD; merely the desire of some to find it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11

 

A lack of evidence isn't contradictorily to a hypothesis.

I agree with that, but in your very next post,which was to me, lack of evidence is your counter to what I was asking. You can't have your cake and eat it.

reply to post by smurfy
I can't edit the above post so I add this link to another forum here at ATS. It may have background relevance at sometime to this thread.

(that's a strange four hour edit allowance btw)