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

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am nowhere denying that debris spread over a large area. The problem seems to be that you don't want to differentiate between the core and floors and the perimiter walls. You can clearly see that the debris outside the footprint consists mostly of the perimiter columns.

There were hundreds of perimeter columns on every floor. There were less than 50 core columns. Of course the debris is going to appear to consist "mostly of the perimeter columns."



Ground Zero above. You can see perimeter and core columns. Plenty of both scattered all over the place.

Most of the floors and core columns would have fallen inside the footprint, as there is no mechanism for them to eject.

You can't get any more backwards than this. Theories and opinions don't determine observations my friend. What you claim is impossible is readily apparent in all photos of Ground Zero, so your point is moot. In science, observations are what determine theories and facts. Not the other way around.

It would be perfectly fine to wonder what could eject so much of the mass of either tower as they were coming down. It's the epitome of ignorance when you deny it ever happened, despite all the photographic evidence, just because you can't explain how it happened without changing your own beliefs. It's religion at its most potent. At any rate it's not news to me that you don't know why those buildings actually "collapsed" anyway. I'm sure you are confused as to how this could happen.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ground Zero above. You can see perimeter and core columns. Plenty of both scattered all over the place.

Did you notice that a large part of the core was still standing after collapse? And you think they ejected? Isn't that extremely contradictory? Couldn't the core columns you see have fallen there after the collapse? (hint: yes they very well could have. In fact it is the most logical explanation).

You can't get any more backwards than this. Theories and opinions don't determine observations my friend. What you claim is impossible is readily apparent in all photos of Ground Zero, so your point is moot. In science, observations are what determine theories and facts. Not the other way around.

We are talking about your interpretation. If you want to do a scientific observation you should exactly determine how much of the floors and core you can identify in the pictures, and where exactly they are. You should also make clear what methodology you use so that anyone can repeat what you did. Instead you are making an extremely rough guesstimate, one that confirms your delusion.

It would be perfectly fine to wonder what could eject so much of the mass of either tower as they were coming down. It's the epitome of ignorance when you deny it ever happened, despite all the photographic evidence, just because you can't explain how it happened without changing your own beliefs. It's religion at its most potent. At any rate it's not news to me that you don't know why those buildings actually "collapsed" anyway. I'm sure you are confused as to how this could happen.

You have continuously failed to show photographic evidence of floors and cores being ejected and you have admitted to this. All we have is a wild interpretation of a non-expert, who can't even begin it explain what he claims. Ironically you compare my position with a religion. My position is 'You can't tell from the photos'. Your position is 'I know what happened'. Which sounds more like a religion?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Did you notice that a large part of the core was still standing after collapse? And you think they ejected? Isn't that extremely contradictory? Couldn't the core columns you see have fallen there after the collapse? (hint: yes they very well could have. In fact it is the most logical explanation).

Any of the core that was still standing was an extremely small percentage of the whole tower. Bsbray and I have already shown you that nothing in the footprint was taller than a couple of floors.

How could the columns have fallen outside the footprint AFTER the collapse? How is that logical?

You are contradictory.

We are talking about your interpretation. If you want to do a scientific observation you should exactly determine how much of the floors and core you can identify in the pictures, and where exactly they are. You should also make clear what methodology you use so that anyone can repeat what you did. Instead you are making an extremely rough guesstimate, one that confirms your delusion.

This is the problem, you can't identify where exactly what is what in the pictures. But you CAN see that there is more debris outside the footprints than inside. You are just being ridiculous with this argument.

If there were floors in the footprint it would be obvious, just like it's obvious WTC 7 landed in it's footprint, but of course you'll argue it didn't.

You have continuously failed to show photographic evidence of floors and cores being ejected and you have admitted to this. All we have is a wild interpretation of a non-expert, who can't even begin it explain what he claims. Ironically you compare my position with a religion. My position is 'You can't tell from the photos'. Your position is 'I know what happened'. Which sounds more like a religion?

But again if the floors were not ejected then WHERE ARE THEY! This is why you are trying to argue there are non-existent floors in the footprint. Without them Bazant fails, NIST fails and YOU fail. It's up to you to prove there are floors in the footprint, not ours to prove there isn't. Until you can prove there are floors in the footprint then I'll use my own incredible skills of observation that ALL humans are born with.

Originally posted by ANOK
But again if the floors were not ejected then WHERE ARE THEY! This is why you are trying to argue there are non-existent floors in the footprint. Without them Bazant fails, NIST fails and YOU fail. It's up to you to prove there are floors in the footprint, not ours to prove there isn't. Until you can prove there are floors in the footprint then I'll use my own incredible skills of observation that ALL humans are born with.

Isn't that convenient. I am not making the claims but I am the one who has to come with the proof. Anyway, I already posted the images that showed the pile is higher in the footprint. If you need more proof, you can take a look at this LIDAR image:



Although I not under the impression that actual proof will convince you.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
But again if the floors were not ejected then WHERE ARE THEY! This is why you are trying to argue there are non-existent floors in the footprint. Without them Bazant fails, NIST fails and YOU fail. It's up to you to prove there are floors in the footprint, not ours to prove there isn't. Until you can prove there are floors in the footprint then I'll use my own incredible skills of observation that ALL humans are born with.

Isn't that convenient. I am not making the claims but I am the one who has to come with the proof. Anyway, I already posted the images that showed the pile is higher in the footprint. If you need more proof, you can take a look at this LIDAR image:



Although I not under the impression that actual proof will convince you.

Now you're doing what everyone has been asking, hitting the "Go" button, but, But, Lidar is a lasar "radar", and not always reliable.The colours are er, nice though.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ground Zero above. You can see perimeter and core columns. Plenty of both scattered all over the place.

Did you notice that a large part of the core was still standing after collapse?

Did you notice that the core columns that briefly remained standing also could not contribute their weight to the potential energy used by Bazant?

You're not actually helping your case.

And define "large." First you were saying no core columns were ejected, now you're saying some of them weren't? The WTC1 spire looked like a single exterior wall of the core structure around where a mechanical floor was, and everything gone above that point.

You can't get any more backwards than this. Theories and opinions don't determine observations my friend. What you claim is impossible is readily apparent in all photos of Ground Zero, so your point is moot. In science, observations are what determine theories and facts. Not the other way around.

We are talking about your interpretation. If you want to do a scientific observation you should exactly determine how much of the floors and core you can identify in the pictures, and where exactly they are. You should also make clear what methodology you use so that anyone can repeat what you did. Instead you are making an extremely rough guesstimate, one that confirms your delusion.

You're trying to make this a whole lot harder than it is, because you don't really want to know how much mass was thrown all over Ground Zero. You want to be comfortably ignorant pretending it was a much smaller amount.

The easiest way to figure out how much mass was scattered all over Ground Zero, is to look at how much was remaining in the footprints and compare. It's only too straightforward and simple, so you want to pretend all the debris piled straight down into the basements where no one can see (how convenient), even though the ground level of WTC1 at least was still intact and there is no evidence at all of so much steel going underground.

You have continuously failed to show photographic evidence of floors and cores being ejected and you have admitted to this. All we have is a wild interpretation of a non-expert, who can't even begin it explain what he claims. Ironically you compare my position with a religion. My position is 'You can't tell from the photos'. Your position is 'I know what happened'. Which sounds more like a religion?

Nearly every sentence in this paragraph is wrong:

You have continuously failed to show photographic evidence of floors and cores being ejected and you have admitted to this.

No, I have provided photos showing how much debris remained in the footprints after the collapses, which is direct photographic evidence refuting Bazant's assumptions that 50-95% of the total mass landed there.

All we have is a wild interpretation of a non-expert, who can't even begin it explain what he claims.

I have been explaining this method of determining how much debris wasn't in the footprints since the beginning of this conversation. Your method of trying to refute my simple observations of photos has been to make up additional theories that have no evidence to support them (all the debris crammed underground, etc.).

Ironically you compare my position with a religion. My position is 'You can't tell from the photos'. Your position is 'I know what happened'. Which sounds more like a religion?

My position is not "I know what happened." You're just continuing to be immature and put words in my mouth, because this is the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I've been saying I don't know what caused all the ejected debris, I only know that it did happen because there is overwhelming photograph evidence both during and after the buildings came down. Your position is to make up convenient theories that all the debris went where we can't see it and wasn't really thrown in all directions, which is based on no evidence at all and is reminiscent of religion because it depends on your stubborn faith to continue believing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Did you notice that the core columns that briefly remained standing also could not contribute their weight to the potential energy used by Bazant?

You're not actually helping your case.

And define "large." First you were saying no core columns were ejected, now you're saying some of them weren't? The WTC1 spire looked like a single exterior wall of the core structure around where a mechanical floor was, and everything gone above that point.

Did you realize that when the core columns did not need to fail, the required energy required to make the collapse progress is a lot lower, making the gravity driven progressive collapse scenario only more likely? Its actually not helping your case.
I am saying there is no evidence of core columns being ejected, no evidence at all. And I have no reason to believe any did.

You're trying to make this a whole lot harder than it is, because you don't really want to know how much mass was thrown all over Ground Zero. You want to be comfortably ignorant pretending it was a much smaller amount.

The easiest way to figure out how much mass was scattered all over Ground Zero, is to look at how much was remaining in the footprints and compare. It's only too straightforward and simple, so you want to pretend all the debris piled straight down into the basements where no one can see (how convenient), even though the ground level of WTC1 at least was still intact and there is no evidence at all of so much steel going underground.

I asked you several times to make this analysis, so claiming I do not want to know isn't really what you would call the truth. The truth is however that you continuously fail to answer, except for some wild guesses.

No, I have provided photos showing how much debris remained in the footprints after the collapses, which is direct photographic evidence refuting Bazant's assumptions that 50-95% of the total mass landed there.

No you have not. You can neither tell how much debris there is just by looking at the surface, nor can you determine for all the debris if it was ejected or fell there after collapse. And why do you think this 50% figure is so important? Do you think when you prove that it is lower than 50% that it must be CD? If so, you really don't understand what that model is for. What we can tell for certain though is that there was not an open space above point of collapse.

I have been explaining this method of determining how much debris wasn't in the footprints since the beginning of this conversation. Your method of trying to refute my simple observations of photos has been to make up additional theories that have no evidence to support them (all the debris crammed underground, etc.).

You do know that making assertions is different from explaining something? I have clearly shown that the debris pile is highest in the footprint. I can't help that destroys your delusion of open space above the point of collapse. I can't help that would mean there was a debris pile capable of progressing collapse. But I also can't help your delusional mind completely ignores those facts. That is something you have to work on yourself.

Bsbray.
Cognitive dissonance.
You are talking and arguing with a diagnosable psychosis.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Did you realize that when the core columns did not need to fail, the required energy required to make the collapse progress is a lot lower, making the gravity driven progressive collapse scenario only more likely? Its actually not helping your case.

A few columns on the outside of where the core once stood, does not equate to "the core columns did not need to fail."

I am saying there is no evidence of core columns being ejected, no evidence at all. And I have no reason to believe any did.

Regardless of whether you like the word "ejected" or not, there were still core columns all over Ground Zero, also in all directions. Unless you're saying they crawled or rolled across the ground, the only way they got there, is through the air.

I asked you several times to make this analysis, so claiming I do not want to know isn't really what you would call the truth. The truth is however that you continuously fail to answer, except for some wild guesses.

Looking at a photo and observing what debris is in it, is not a wild guess. You've already seen the photos of the footprints after collapse. Try again.

No you have not. You can neither tell how much debris there is just by looking at the surface

1) Perimeter columns intact on the ground level.

2) Core structure intact on the ground level.

3) No evidence of large amounts of debris being crammed underneath this intact structure.

Conclusion: Yes, you can very easily see how much debris stacked into the footprints, by looking at the footprints. I'm sorry for how painful this must be for you.

And why do you think this 50% figure is so important? Do you think when you prove that it is lower than 50% that it must be CD?

No, it means that Bazant's model is irrelevant to the actual towers because he assumed data that was not accurate, but then again we already knew that.

You do know that making assertions is different from explaining something? I have clearly shown that the debris pile is highest in the footprint. I can't help that destroys your delusion of open space above the point of collapse. I can't help that would mean there was a debris pile capable of progressing collapse. But I also can't help your delusional mind completely ignores those facts. That is something you have to work on yourself.

So somehow, the fact that the debris pile in the footprints was sitting on top of intact structure and didn't even reach beyond where the lobby used to be, proves to you that there was enough energy to continue the collapse, even though Bazant already worked it out so you would know that you actually need 50-95% of the total mass of either tower to be in the footprints for that to be true.

Do you make it a point to try to make illogical arguments?

reply to post by bsbray11


Look at this video at around the 1:00 minute mark. www.youtube.com...


You will see exterior columns continuing to fail and a core that remains rigid during the time it is visible. The floors and exterior columns failed first, followed by the collapse of the core. Note that the structure of the core is noticibly different from the structure of the exterior columns and is plainly visible in the clip. The later collapse of the standing core is obscured by the dust.

reply to post by pteridine


And what caused 'The later collapse of the standing core'?

This again contradicts natural collapse. If the weight of the floors caused the collapse, then what caused the final collapse of the core?

I'm sure you've seen this vid that shows the core, not obscured by dust, collapsing.





Watch very closely at the start of the collapse, and you can see the columns start to lean over and fall, but suddenly they disappear into dust.

Why does it fall vertically? Why does it not stay a solid and fall over to one side? What energy is working here to make what's left of the core just simply drop straight down and disappear?

No it's not dust on the steel, the steel itself disappears, look closely. This is not caused by fire or plane crashes.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine

 

And what caused 'The later collapse of the standing core'?

This again contradicts natural collapse. If the weight of the floors caused the collapse, then what caused the final collapse of the core?

No it's not dust on the steel, the steel itself disappears, look closely. This is not caused by fire or plane crashes

Do you remember reading that the structure of these buildings was unique at the time and that they were a tube within a tube with each tube providing support for the other? That they were held together, laterally, by the floor trusses. That the outer columns provided lateral support for the building and without them, the core would not stand. They were right. The core started leaning and then collapsed because of gravity. The steel fell out of the picture. It did not turn to dust. There is no mechanism for steel turning to steel dust below its boiling point and obviously that point was not reached.

reply to post by bsbray11


It seems you do not really understand what models are really for. Do you still believe that there was open space above the point of collapse? Do yo still believe the debris pile is lower inside the footprint than outside? Or are you starting to realize those are delusions?

Originally posted by pteridine
You will see exterior columns continuing to fail and a core that remains rigid during the time it is visible.

That is not the whole core. It's only a small part of it. Count how many columns you can see. And obviously everything above that has already been destroyed. Core columns were also scattered all around Ground Zero, in all directions, after they came down.

Those columns also do not contribute mass, when Bazant assumed all the mass of every floor was available upon proceeding down to the next floor: another reason his model is irrelevant to the actual collapses.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems you do not really understand what models are really for.

They are usually for trying to predict or recreate something that happened in reality using scientific principles in order to test those principles. In this case the data of Bazant's model differs so much from reality that if he used real data based on real observations, his model wouldn't even work. Any other kind of modeling is for entertainment purposes.

Do you still believe that there was open space above the point of collapse?

Can you show me what quote of mine you're talking about specifically? Don't paraphrase me, either. Show me my exact words, because if a test was required before you could post on this website, you would fail it for either putting words in other peoples' mouths or not being able to accurately comprehend what people post.

Do yo still believe the debris pile is lower inside the footprint than outside?

Show me where I said that, too. I guess your new argument is "if debris is highest in the footprints, even by 2 inches, then there was automatically enough mass to justify Bazant." Something like that, right?

Or are you starting to realize those are delusions?

Delusional in the sense that I never said either and you're making up straw-man arguments out of pure desperation now.

Originally posted by bsbray11
They are usually for trying to predict or recreate something that happened in reality using scientific principles in order to test those principles. In this case the data of Bazant's model differs so much from reality that if he used real data based on real observations, his model wouldn't even work. Any other kind of modeling is for entertainment purposes.

His model was meant to prove that collapse would progress with assumptions most optimistic for survival. These assumptions are unrealistic, but when there is even progression with these kind of assumptions, and more accurate assumptions would also result in a model that shows progression. That is not entertainment, it is a model that proves a case.

Can you show me what quote of mine you're talking about specifically? Don't paraphrase me, either. Show me my exact words, because if a test was required before you could post on this website, you would fail it for either putting words in other peoples' mouths or not being able to accurately comprehend what people post.

"there was a MASSIVE HOLE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FOR AIR TO ESCAPE, which was where this destruction was happening."

Do yo still believe the debris pile is lower inside the footprint than outside?

Show me where I said that, too. I guess your new argument is "if debris is highest in the footprints, even by 2 inches, then there was automatically enough mass to justify Bazant." Something like that, right?

Its a rather inconvenient consequence of claiming that almost all debris ejected. But don't let logic stand in the way of your delusions. The difference in height between the footprint and outside the footprint was in fact more like 70 feet according to the image I posted.

At least you acknowledge that there was a significant pile of debris inside the footprint. So are you ready for the next step? Are you ready to acknowledge that there may have been enough mass for the collapse to progress? Or do you have any reason to assume there was not enough mass?

Originally posted by pteridine

Do you remember reading that the structure of these buildings was unique at the time and that they were a tube within a tube with each tube providing support for the other? That they were held together, laterally, by the floor trusses. That the outer columns provided lateral support for the building and without them, the core would not stand. They were right. The core started leaning and then collapsed because of gravity. The steel fell out of the picture. It did not turn to dust. There is no mechanism for steel turning to steel dust below its boiling point and obviously that point was not reached.

Sorry but I think you are completely wrong. The core should have been able to stand by itself, but that is not really the point. 'Tube in tube design' doesn't mean what you think it does, and makes no difference as to whether the core could hold itself up on its own.

The point is the 'spire' does not fall from gravity. How does a solid steel beam/column drop straight down, and not lean over and fall? What point was the failure at? No matter what forces are involved in a natural collapse it can not make steel drop like that.

You can't even explain how the core collapsed to begin with, according to NIST the floor trusses failed allowing the floors to drop. What caused the core to drop? No the floors did not hold up the core, that is ass backwards.

The core was 47 rectangular steel box columns tied together by thousands of steel cross braces, the largest box columns were 18"x36", the smallest 16"x16", with steel walls 4" thick at the base and tapering to 1" at the top, and were anchored directly to the bedrock. You think that couldn't stand by itself? If it couldn't stand by itself hanging 110 floors from it, and attaching thousands of tons of facade to the floors, would help it stand? No, that is not how it works mate. The core is a common mechanical structure just like any steel tower.

Originally posted by -PLB-
His model was meant to prove that collapse would progress with assumptions most optimistic for survival.

You don't even understand what that means. The fact that he is assuming more mass than was actually available is your first and most obvious "clue" from this discussion that his model does not assume conditions most optimistic for the buildings to survive. Adding more imaginary mass that wasn't actually available is contributing to destroying them!

That is not entertainment, it is a model that proves a case.

You wouldn't know whether it proved anything or not because you're not paying attention.

Can you show me what quote of mine you're talking about specifically?

"there was a MASSIVE HOLE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FOR AIR TO ESCAPE, which was where this destruction was happening."

Yes, I still believe air, dust, even large structural debris had no problem whatsoever escaping from the top of either tower as it was being destroyed. Photographic evidence also confirms this obvious and common sense physical fact, that the towers were not air-tight as they were being blown in all directions.

Do yo still believe the debris pile is lower inside the footprint than outside?

Show me where I said that, too.

Its a rather inconvenient consequence

Nope, that's not a quote. Another straw-man.

Whether or not you see the 50-95% of the total mass of either tower still within its footprint, is not dependent upon whether the pile in the footprint barely stacks higher than the entire surrounding block of scattered debris. Of course this is going to be the next fallacy that becomes a teddy bear for 10 or 20 posts I guess.

At least you acknowledge that there was a significant pile of debris inside the footprint.

Again putting words in my mouth. Is English your second language?

There is an amount of debris that is relevant because of Bazant's model. Nothing else about the pile of debris is relevant. If you can show what little remained in either was 50% of the total building mass, then you've proven something relevant. Otherwise, you're trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass, including your own.

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but I think you are completely wrong. The core should have been able to stand by itself, but that is not really the point. 'Tube in tube design' doesn't mean what you think it does, and makes no difference as to whether the core could hold itself up on its own.

The point is the 'spire' does not fall from gravity. How does a solid steel beam/column drop straight down, and not lean over and fall? What point was the failure at? No matter what forces are involved in a natural collapse it can not make steel drop like that.

The core was not able to stand by itself as there was no lateral stability. It does lean before collapse but it doesn't fall over like a tree because it is not rigid enough. If it didn't fall from gravity what did it fall from?

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't even understand what that means. The fact that he is assuming more mass than was actually available is your first and most obvious "clue" from this discussion that his model does not assume conditions most optimistic for the buildings to survive. Adding more imaginary mass that wasn't actually available is contributing to destroying them!

You wouldn't know whether it proved anything or not because you're not paying attention.

His model that proved progressive collapse assumed that only the mass of the top section was available. That means no mass at all accumulated, or in other words, 100% of the debris ejected. And even under that assumption the collapse progressed. The accumulation of mass was only required to match the observed collapse time, it was not required for progressive collapse to occur at all.

Yes, I still believe air, dust, even large structural debris had no problem whatsoever escaping from the top of either tower as it was being destroyed. Photographic evidence also confirms this obvious and common sense physical fact, that the towers were not air-tight as they were being blown in all directions.

Why do you think stuff is blown in all directions? Could it have to do with there being pressure buildup? (hint: yes). If you believe that most of the core columns and floors ejected, you must also believe there was an enormous pressure buildup. (Although pressure of such magnitude only exists in lalaland.)

There is an amount of debris that is relevant because of Bazant's model. Nothing else about the pile of debris is relevant. If you can show what little remained in either was 50% of the total building mass, then you've proven something relevant. Otherwise, you're trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass, including your own.

How about this: why don't you prove that more than 50% ejected. And while you are at it, also explain why exactly this is relevant. What are you trying to prove? Or is your only goal to prove that Bazants model is unrealistic? If so, then maybe you should read his paper, as this matter is clearly addressed.