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

reply to post by ANOK


Coming from you this isn't really impressing. Your inability to understand not that hard to grasp physical concepts in no way relates to me. And implying I am a lying about my education just because I see things differently (which is by the way the same view as the vast majority of engineers) says more about you than me.

Anyway, try to keep these kind of pointless replies to yourself as they are in no way contributing.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I rather have you formulate your argument in a clear, short and coherent manner instead of me guessing what you mean.

If you can't understand something, that's your problem, and something to think about the next time you're telling me how wrong I am and how right you are. Though I already know it won't ultimately make any difference to you.


Speaking of which, did you finally get around to reading this?

www.journalof911studies.com...

reply to post by bsbray11


I missed this post, but I guess thats a good thing, its a disingenuous load of crap. It is full of deliberate misinterpretations in order to attack my person, not really worth my time. A real quality post from bsbray11 .

reply to post by bsbray11


Maybe me not understanding you has something to do with you not expressing yourself clearly. Just maybe. But by all means, remain as vague as possible, clearing up what you mean has no benefit for this conservation whatsoever.

As for that paper, I skimmed through it, and responded on its conclusions. Since the conclusions are not really exciting, I don't see a need to further examine it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

You seem to ignore 2 facts:

1) There is a bunch of collapsed floors between the lower and top section, increasing the impact force on the lower section with each floor that collapses.

Huh? How is there a bunch of floors 'between' the lower and upper section? The upper section is the floors above the point the collapse started, the lower is the static floors. There are NO floors between them.

Increasing the impact force does not change the FACT that colliding objects recieve EQUAL forces. How many more times do I have to quote Newtons laws of motion before this FACT gets through?

2) Even when the top floors all collapse, the mass does not disappear. Instead, it is compacted in a pile of debris that is capable of the exact same function as an intact top section.

No it isn't. Again you are not paying attention to Newtons laws of motion. The top mass is not going to collapse the bottom mass while staying intact itself, IMPOSSIBLE.

Again this comes down to your misunderstanding of physics.

How many more times are you going to read this until you understand it?...

Newton's third law of motion

When two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on one another.
The third law expresses the idea that a force always involves two bodies and the " third-law pair " of forces act on two different bodies..

www.greenandwhite.net...

It is conservation of momentum...

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

If you understand that you will understand why 30 floors can not crush 80 floors to the ground.

Answer this question please...

3. Miles Tugo and Ben Travlun are riding in a bus at highway speed on a nice summer day when an unlucky bug splatters onto the windshield. Miles and Ben begin discussing the physics of the situation. Miles suggests that the momentum change of the bug is much greater than that of the bus. After all, argues Miles, there was no noticeable change in the speed of the bus compared to the obvious change in the speed of the bug. Ben disagrees entirely, arguing that that both bug and bus encounter the same force, momentum change, and impulse. Who do you agree with? Support your answer.

I will provide the link with the answer when you reply.

If you just ignore this then I'm done with you, I hope you enjoy being ignorant and never apply for a job in engineering, please.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Coming from you this isn't really impressing. Your inability to understand not that hard to grasp physical concepts in no way relates to me. And implying I am a lying about my education just because I see things differently (which is by the way the same view as the vast majority of engineers) says more about you than me.

Anyway, try to keep these kind of pointless replies to yourself as they are in no way contributing.

You are lying about your profession because to be an electrical engineer you have to take physics and understand how to apply it.

You don't even understand Newtons laws of motion. If you answer the question in my last post, you will either get it wrong and prove me right, or get it right and contradict yourself. You think we can't tell from what someone writes what their education level is? BTW unlike you this is not meant as an empty insult, I am just being honest and I back up my claim with facts, anyone reading this thread can see that. If you are going to throw the same insults back at me at least provide something to support them.

Where did you get your degree?

Originally posted by ANOK
Huh? How is there a bunch of floors 'between' the lower and upper section? The upper section is the floors above the point the collapse started, the lower is the static floors. There are NO floors between them.

Increasing the impact force does not change the FACT that colliding objects recieve EQUAL forces. How many more times do I have to quote Newtons laws of motion before this FACT gets through?

I was talking about floors that already collapsed. I thought you would be able to figure that out, my bad.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Again you are not paying attention to Newtons laws of motion. The top mass is not going to collapse the bottom mass while staying intact itself, IMPOSSIBLE.

Possible when you have compacted floors in between.

Again this comes down to your misunderstanding of physics.

How many more times are you going to read this until you understand it?...

Newton's third law of motion

When two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on one another.
The third law expresses the idea that a force always involves two bodies and the " third-law pair " of forces act on two different bodies..

www.greenandwhite.net...

It is conservation of momentum...

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

If you understand that you will understand why 30 floors can not crush 80 floors to the ground.

Answer this question please...

3. Miles Tugo and Ben Travlun are riding in a bus at highway speed on a nice summer day when an unlucky bug splatters onto the windshield. Miles and Ben begin discussing the physics of the situation. Miles suggests that the momentum change of the bug is much greater than that of the bus. After all, argues Miles, there was no noticeable change in the speed of the bus compared to the obvious change in the speed of the bug. Ben disagrees entirely, arguing that that both bug and bus encounter the same force, momentum change, and impulse. Who do you agree with? Support your answer.

I will provide the link with the answer when you reply.

If you just ignore this then I'm done with you, I hope you enjoy being ignorant and never apply for a job in engineering, please.

edit on 3/3/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

The problem isn't my lack of understanding in physics, its your lack of understanding what happens when during the collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


they have equal momentum and impact force.
The mass of the bug is insignificant compared to the bus.
therefore the bug only stops the forward movement of the bus for one millionth of a second, while the bus stops and reverses the forward movement of the bug permanently.

PLB how did I know you wouldn't be able to answer that question? Think about that mate.

Ben Travlun is correct.

The bug and bus experience the same force, the same impulse, and the same momentum change (as discussed in this lesson). This is contrary to the popular (though false) belief which resembles Miles' statement. The bug has less mass and therefore more acceleration; occupants of the very massive bus do not feel the extremely small acceleration. Furthermore, the bug is composed of a less hardy material and thus splatters all over the windshield. Yet the greater "splatterability" of the bug and the greater acceleration do not mean the bug has a greater force, impulse, or momentum change.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Now if you can learn to apply this to the collapse of the towers you would realise that floors can not crush floors of equal, or more mass in the case of the mechanical floors, without being crushed themselves. This is why 17 floors can not crush 93 floors without the crushing floors also being crushed until they can no longer crush the remaining floors.

PLB if you fail to realise this then you need to go back to that school you got your 'degree' from and demand your money back.

reply to post by ANOK


You can't understand that compacted floors between the top and lower section makes a difference. So ok you are bad at physics, but, what is your point anyhow?

Originally posted by -PLB-
You can't understand that compacted floors between the top and lower section makes a difference. So ok you are bad at physics, but, what is your point anyhow?

This coming from the same person who kept telling me they knew more physics than me, and then couldn't produce a simple free-body diagram when invited, after saying that changing the angle of a truss increases the load it experiences. Your track record for knowing anything about physics here is awful. Probably the reason ANOK never responded to you is because this is a joke of a response coming from you anyway.

reply to post by bsbray11


Stop lying about me not being able to produce a free body diagram. The reason I didn't post it is that I couldn't be bothered to go through all the effort of drawing it and uploading it, just for a delusional nut who would just reject it. Did you forget I corrected the one you drew? Did you forget I exactly pointed out what you did wrong? Ah no, you still don't understand what you did wrong.

Anyway, I guess this type of personal attacks and and lying is just part of your condition, so maybe I should ease off a but.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Stop lying about me not being able to produce a free body diagram.

Oh, then where did you post it?

Do you finally want to take a crack at one now that I did one for you as an example? Maybe now you're a little more confident? Maybe you can even go back and show that I didn't actually prove you wrong, and that my FBD was in error.

What do you say?

The reason I didn't post it is that I couldn't be bothered to go through all the effort of drawing it and uploading it

Like I did in 2 or 3 minutes, despite you having no problem spending so much time typing up these stupid responses. Right.

just for a delusional nut who would just reject it.

Out come the insults when your "I'm better at physics than you" argument turns belly-up on itself.

Did you forget I corrected the one you drew? Did you forget I exactly pointed out what you did wrong? Ah no, you still don't understand what you did wrong.

Because I didn't do anything wrong.

Anyway, I guess this type of personal attacks and and lying is just part of your condition, so maybe I should ease off a but.

Ease off a bit for your own sake chief. If anything you're doing me good with the laughter. Laughter is healthy.

reply to post by bsbray11


Well and here we go. You did do something wrong. In fact, it was fundamentally wrong. You drew a horizontal vector representing the force of the trusses on the columns.

And now you have me wondering. Do you really not understand that its wrong? Is your ego preventing you from admitting it? Is it your condition that makes you believe it is correct? Or are you just trolling?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Well and here we go. You did do something wrong. In fact, it was fundamentally wrong. You drew a horizontal vector representing the force of the trusses on the columns.

Ohhh there goes strike 1.

You were saying that the trusses could exert a horizontal force and pull the perimeter columns inward, remember?

Or have you changed your mind about that now?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by -PLB-
Well and here we go. You did do something wrong. In fact, it was fundamentally wrong. You drew a horizontal vector representing the force of the trusses on the columns.

Ohhh there goes strike 1.

You were saying that the trusses could exert a horizontal force and pull the perimeter columns inward, remember?

Yes, when the trusses start sagging remember. Not before that. You were claiming that the horizontal force would not change, and you drew that faulty diagram to support that. I can go over it with you step by step again, and you can question me on every step you do not agree with or do not understand. But the question is, are you capable of changing your viewpoint? Else that would all be useless.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
You were saying that the trusses could exert a horizontal force and pull the perimeter columns inward, remember?

Yes, when the trusses start sagging remember.

So would that represent a horizontal force on the exterior columns or not?

You were claiming that the horizontal force would not change

No no. Go back and read my posts my friend. Quote them if you want. I said changing the angle at which the truss attaches does not increase the force experienced by the column. The reason I was saying this is because you were claiming the opposite, ignorant of physics. Go ahead and post the image itself if you like, it explains it all right there on it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

You can't understand that compacted floors between the top and lower section makes a difference. So ok you are bad at physics, but, what is your point anyhow?

LOL I new you wouldn't answer the question.

What do you mean by floors between the top and lower section? The top section was floors, the lower section was floors. It's ALL floors between the basement and the roof.

But you couldn't even answer a simple high school physics question, AND you claimed to be an electrical engineer. I don't like liars PLB, especially when those lies are supporting an organization sending people to die in wars based on more lies in order to line peoples pockets with stolen wealth.

Why PLB, why would you do this? Why do all you OSers do this? Are you scared of the truth, the reality of what really happened?

reply to post by bsbray11


Irony. I suggest you go read what I wrote. I nowhere said that the horizontal component of the force force changed as result of a change in angle. That was made that up by you, I think I already addressed that misconception on your part.

Maybe you understand it like this:

Cold->stiff trusses->vertical force
Hot->trusses in catenary action->horizontal force

But like I said, don't take my word for it and actually read the papers I pointed you to, for example this randomly picked one found after 10 seconds of Googling (you would have done that yourself if you were genuinely interested):

fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/AA_SFPE.pdf

Originally posted by -PLB-
Irony. I suggest you go read what I wrote. I nowhere said that the horizontal component of the force force changed as result of a change in angle. That was made that up by you, I think I already addressed that misconception on your part.

Right, well this is the 3rd post in a row where you've changed your argument about why my FBD was wrong. I was illustrating the horizontal force you think existed pulling the perimeter columns inward, would not be increased simply because the trusses sagged.

First you said I was wrong to even show a horizontal force, then you admitted you think one existed....