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

Originally posted by -PLB-
So both your images show the situation when the trusses are already sagging?

No, I said that I already modeling a sagging truss, not that both parts of the image reflecting what you are referring to. Why do they both need to already be sagging when the 2nd one has what you want anyway if understanding the relevant one is possible at all for you? The 1st one was only included to show that the math is consistent and that a purely horizontal component represents the greatest horizontal force (NOT one that is at an angle). I understand that that goes way over your head so to simplify things just don't worry about the 1st image if it's confusing for you, just look at the 2nd one that has what I told you about.

And you agree that when the trusses do not sag, there is no horizontal component? If so, we totally agree. I would say we are making progress.

No significant component, but remember it was you making the claim that suddenly this force becomes appreciable when the trusses are simply heated, never me. No "progress" is actually being made until you prove this is the case with actual science and not "I'm not a teacher" stupidity. You're still right where you started.

What were you trying to model then? What is the difference between the two diagrams you drew? Next to one your write "sagging effect reduces horizontal component" (which is wrong, as there is no horizontal component without sagging, so it can also not reduce).

Once again you cannot understand that the trusses are not physically sitting directly on top of the columns like in the diagram Nutter drew, which is why his was inaccurate. If you really are having that much trouble then think of it this way: does hanging something heavy off of your side make you feel as putting something heavy on top of your head? The trusses were attached to the sides of columns, not automatically transferring all gravity loads vertically by virtue of sitting on top of the columns... because for the 100th time, they weren't sitting on top of the columns.

Dealing with you is like having to correct a child who isn't paying attention, over and over and over. Try not to take it personally, but it really is like that. I've literally said everything in this post weeks ago. Do you know how sad that is? If you were mature enough to actually consider everything I post the first time, I doubt I would have to do this. You are not even trying to think. You literally came here convincing that the only thing you had to prove is that you're already automatically right.

But now you say both diagrams show a situation with sagging trusses?

Once again putting words in my mouth. I never said "both." You invent one lie after another just to keep a stupid argument rolling since you can't argue with the facts. Drawing the same thing twice is the level of redundancy appropriate only for you, except actually for you I would probably have to draw the same thing 1000 times or more before you even half understood it, judging by your other posts.

You thought that a change in angle as result of the sagging changed an already existing horizontal force.

No, I didn't. In the course of our discussion prior to that you said that the trusses didn't gain weight due to heating but effectively exerted more force on the perimeter column by the change in angle. If I wasn't led to believe you were saying this, then I wouldn't have made the diagram in the first place. The truth is that you are flailing from one topic to another so rapidly in your confusion that you have no idea what in the hell you have even been saying this whole time.

The horizontal component appears only when there is sagging, and not when the trusses are stiff, as illustrated in Nutters diagrams.

You have an obsession with a fact we both agree upon, when your obsession should be proving that sagging causes the perimeter to experience more force. Stop stalling.

And why are there additional columns bowing inward again in the first place, aside from what the impacts did? Oh yeah, according to NIST it's because the trusses were exerting some kind of horizontal PULLING FORCE on the columns. Does that answer your question, or are you still confused?

Yes, and where do you think this force comes from? Indeed, gravity.

Gravity is not a horizontal force. For the love of god, take a physics class.

Like I said, what Nutter thinks is irrelevant. His diagrams are correct, no need for me to redraw them.

His diagram is correct for a structure that is not the WTC. When you can show me that the trusses were sitting directly on top of the columns like in his diagram, I'll believe you. Until then, I already know you are embarrassingly confused and definitely NOT an engineer.

So let me get this straight: you do not think that modeling the forces involved with the fact that the trusses are connected to the side of the columns instead of the center is relevant? Ok. Then tell me, why exactly are Nutters diagrams wrong?

I already have, numerous times. There is no point when you don't listen. It's as irrelevant as the difference between a horizontal and vertical transfer of force, literally. Ie not irrelevant at all to this conversation, in case you hadn't noticed.



Btw see how diluted and convoluted this discussion has become?

When are you actually going to prove that a sagging truss causes a significant "pulling" force (horizontal meaning obviously NOT gravity ), on the perimeter columns?

You have said so many completely asinine things on this thread, I could still be parading them around right now and having many a laugh over them. But I let them go because I'm actually aiming for a little more maturity here, and that would include you being able to prove your point without taking 50 pages of irrelevant "discussion." Do you understand?

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I said that I already modeling a sagging truss, not that both parts of the image reflecting what you are referring to. Why do they both need to already be sagging when the 2nd one has what you want anyway if understanding the relevant one is possible at all for you? The 1st one was only included to show that the math is consistent and that a purely horizontal component represents the greatest horizontal force (NOT one that is at an angle). I understand that that goes way over your head so to simplify things just don't worry about the 1st image if it's confusing for you, just look at the 2nd one that has what I told you about.

I don't see why modeling a non-existing situation to disprove a non-made claim is useful for anything.

No significant component, but remember it was you making the claim that suddenly this force becomes appreciable when the trusses are simply heated, never me. No "progress" is actually being made until you prove this is the case with actual science and not "I'm not a teacher" stupidity. You're still right where you started.

So you at least acknowledge there is a horizontal component, but think it is too small? I call that progress.

Once again you cannot understand that the trusses are not physically sitting directly on top of the columns like in the diagram Nutter drew, which is why his was inaccurate. If you really are having that much trouble then think of it this way: does hanging something heavy off of your side make you feel as putting something heavy on top of your head? The trusses were attached to the sides of columns, not automatically transferring all gravity loads vertically by virtue of sitting on top of the columns... because for the 100th time, they weren't sitting on top of the columns.

And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

Dealing with you is like having to correct a child who isn't paying attention, over and over and over. Try not to take it personally, but it really is like that. I've literally said everything in this post weeks ago. Do you know how sad that is? If you were mature enough to actually consider everything I post the first time, I doubt I would have to do this. You are not even trying to think. You literally came here convincing that the only thing you had to prove is that you're already automatically right.

Right. Instead of responding to my arguments why eccentric loading is irrelevant to model, you just repeat that I don't listen and don't understand. Brilliant.

Once again putting words in my mouth. I never said "both." You invent one lie after another just to keep a stupid argument rolling since you can't argue with the facts. Drawing the same thing twice is the level of redundancy appropriate only for you, except actually for you I would probably have to draw the same thing 1000 times or more before you even half understood it, judging by your other posts.

I don't put words in your mouth, I am asking a question.

No, I didn't. In the course of our discussion prior to that you said that the trusses didn't gain weight due to heating but effectively exerted more force on the perimeter column by the change in angle. If I wasn't led to believe you were saying this, then I wouldn't have made the diagram in the first place. The truth is that you are flailing from one topic to another so rapidly in your confusion that you have no idea what in the hell you have even been saying this whole time.

I nowhere said such a thing. You just didn't understand it and made a wrong diagram. Instead of asking what I meant, you made incorrect assumptions. Nice.

You have an obsession with a fact we both agree upon, when your obsession should be proving that sagging causes the perimeter to experience more force. Stop stalling.

I already pointed you to both proof (experimental data) and the involved physics (wikipedia page on catenary). What more do you require?

Gravity is not a horizontal force. For the love of god, take a physics class.

It is gravity pulling on the trusses that causes a horizontal component. Nutter correctly drew this force in his diagrams. You failed to do so and even claim this force is irrelevant.

His diagram is correct for a structure that is not the WTC. When you can show me that the trusses were sitting directly on top of the columns like in his diagram, I'll believe you. Until then, I already know you are embarrassingly confused and definitely NOT an engineer.

And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

I already have, numerous times. There is no point when you don't listen. It's as irrelevant as the difference between a horizontal and vertical transfer of force, literally. Ie not irrelevant at all to this conversation, in case you hadn't noticed.

And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

Btw see how diluted and convoluted this discussion has become?

When are you actually going to prove that a sagging truss causes a significant "pulling" force (horizontal meaning obviously NOT gravity

), on the perimeter columns?

You have said so many completely asinine things on this thread, I could still be parading them around right now and having many a laugh over them. But I let them go because I'm actually aiming for a little more maturity here, and that would include you being able to prove your point without taking 50 pages of irrelevant "discussion." Do you understand?

As long as you ignore the papers I pointed you to which show actual experimental data of how much external column can bow as result of sagging trusses in actual real life tests, and as long as you ignore the physics behind a catenary, I think you will never see the light.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't see why modeling a non-existing situation to disprove a non-made claim is useful for anything.

So far it's the closest anyone has come to penetrating the mystery of what in the HELL you have been "arguing."


Have you done your FBD yet to illustrate what you're talking about? You told me it would be simple (for me) to correct the FBD I did, so why can't you do it? Because you're not actually an engineer, and you've been trolling and lying to us?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So far it's the closest anyone has come to penetrating the mystery of what in the HELL you have been "arguing."


Have you done your FBD yet to illustrate what you're talking about? You told me it would be simple (for me) to correct the FBD I did, so why can't you do it? Because you're not actually an engineer, and you've been trolling and lying to us?

The diagrams by Nutter perfectly illustrate what I am talking about, I don't need to draw any myself as they would be similar. Its not my fault that you are clueless at interpreting them. I can't really remember saying that your diagrams are simple to correct as they don't really make sense at all. They describe a non existing fantasy situation and don't give any additional insight.

And accusing me for not being an engineer is ironic

Originally posted by -PLB-
The diagrams by Nutter perfectly illustrate what I am talking about

Even if you want to keep erroneously claiming this after Nutter himself backed off from his own diagram, it doesn't show the trusses sagging and pulling the perimeter columns inward.

Weren't you trying to prove something again?

Like, oh... that the trusses could pull the perimeter columns in via sagging?

Doesn't this pulling require a horizontal force?


Nutter's diagram doesn't show this. It doesn't even make sense scientifically and you are way too confused to even know where to begin putting it into a FBD.

reply to post by bsbray11


His diagram really shows the horizontal component of the force. He even highlighted it in red. What causes your inability to identify it? I doubt it is your lack of skill and knowledge, as you were capable of drawing a horizontal arrow yourself. So it could be your mental condition or you are just trolling. Or do you have another suggestion? Do you see the arrows highlighted in red at all? If not, what do you see? And if so, what orientation do you think the arrows have?

reply to post by -PLB-


Post the freaking image you are talking about again.

Go ahead. It doesn't show what NIST or you are claiming happened, at all. The sagging is caused by thermal expansion, and that does not represent any significant "pull" force on the column. Neither is the truss resting on top of the column, but is already attached to the side, obviously indicating that the perimeter columns were designed for that kind of loading, dampers and all.

And look at this:




Take a wild guess what those spandrel plates were for. Go ahead. And the dampers. For gravity loads?


Can you add any of these things up?


And then we can resume talking about when you are going to do your free-body diagram.

reply to post by bsbray11


And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

And again, "my" free body diagram would be the same as Nutters. If you don't even know which image that is, just wow. WOW . You are more crazy that I thought.

Originally posted by -PLB-
And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

What eccentric loading are you talking about?

If a truss, or any steel component, sags it is not taking on any load it didn't already carry. Why do you insist there was extra load on the trusses?

Seeing as the trusses must have been designed to hold their own wight by at least x2 (safety factor remember), then they could hold twice their own weight, which means the steel would have to have got extremely hot, even losing 50% of their holding strength they should not have sagged.

If they did sag then they would simply stretch with a load on them, STRETCH not put a pulling force on the columns.

reply to post by ANOK


Can you point to a quote where I am insisting that there was extra load on the columns? And after failing to find it, can you explain how you came to this idea? The situation where trusses cause a pull force is both well explained by the physics behind a catenary and supported by actual experimental data, both to which I pointed to. If that isn't good enough, then what is?

Originally posted by -PLB-
And again, I gave arguments why modeling the eccentric loading is irrelevant in this situation. You don't even attempt to answer to these arguments.

Attempt to answer something that ran along the lines of, "I read something somewhere and it made me think you're wrong." Yeah, that definitely requires a rebuttal.

I've changed my tune on the Thermate. I think it was used to weaken the structure, as Cole says, but I no longer believe it was used to carve the gashes. While studying the Naudet film for evidence as to what DID cause the gashes, I stumbled upon an amazing similarity between Luc Corchesne's video and Jules Naudet's video.

Shameless plug for my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you point to a quote where I am insisting that there was extra load on the columns?

You are saying the perimeter columns began experiencing greater horizontal forces that pulled them inward and eventually caused enough deflection all around the building for NIST's initiation hypothesis to be relevant.

If you're not saying that, then there is no reason for the columns to have buckled in the first place.

If it was all gravity like you also claim (even though gravity is NEVER a horizontal force and this is about the most elementary mistake you could make, well besides all the others you've been making and prove you don't have the education you claim) the buildings would have collapsed immediately and it wouldn't have taken an extra 45+ minutes for either tower to start exploding everywhere.


Did you comment on the spandrel plates or what they're for? No.

Did you comment on the dampers or what they're for? No.

The last 50 pages of discussion or so have been a direct result of you having no clue what you're talking about and erroneously claiming to be an engineer. Does some institution somewhere actually have your transcripts?

The situation where trusses cause a pull force is both well explained by the physics behind a catenary and supported by actual experimental data

This is complete bull and only shows you don't read anything people post. Where is "actual experimental data" to verify NIST's hypothesis? What in the hell are you talking about?

And last time I checked the WTC truss/perimeter was not a catenary configuration, a sagging truss is not a catenary (it's suffered thermal EXPANSION! which for the scientifically ignorant means a force pushing OUTWARD on the end and causing bowing in the middle from the truss having nowhere else to go -- not transferring "inward" like a catenary -- do you know what that means for you "catenary" theory? DEBUNKED.), and this whole bit about catenaries was a very poor choice you made scores of pages ago to embrace an idea that no official report ever has just to keep an internet argument going.



Look at the big picture here. We have questions, you tried to answer, and hopefully you will eventually see how futile your answers have been towards explaining anything at all and maybe better understand why we have these questions. So far the most convincing thing you've posted is your repeated assertion that you must just have trouble putting things into words because you're not a physics teacher. If you can't see that your posts are not resolving anything as to why those columns buckled, you must not even be trying to be critical of yourself, or put a single thought into your own arguments. Maybe this is what psychologists call denial or maybe you really are trolling.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Can you point to a quote where I am insisting that there was extra load on the columns?

I'm not going to dig through to find it but you made this assertion many times.

How would your hypothesis of the sagging trusses pull in the outer columns if you didn't think there was an extra load put on the columns?

No extra load and the columns are not going to move anywhere. The extra load would have to be massive anyway if you remember to consider the buildings safety factor.

The situation where trusses cause a pull force is both well explained by the physics behind a catenary and supported by actual experimental data, both to which I pointed to. If that isn't good enough, then what is?

No it isn't. We have had this discussion before.

A catenary is the natural curve of a sagging chain or wire supported at the ends and acted on by its own weight.

What has that got to do with trusses sagging from heat putting more force on the columns than they already did?
You couldn't explain this pages ago, so why do you insist on re-hashing it?

The curve a hanging flexible wire or chain assumes when supported at its ends and acted upon by a uniform gravitational force

mathworld.wolfram.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm not going to dig through to find it but you made this assertion many times.

How would your hypothesis of the sagging trusses pull in the outer columns if you didn't think there was an extra load put on the columns?

No extra load and the columns are not going to move anywhere. The extra load would have to be massive anyway if you remember to consider the buildings safety factor.

The problem is, I never made this assertion even once, its just you assuming it. I have even directly rejected this strawman.

No it isn't. We have had this discussion before.

A catenary is the natural curve of a sagging chain or wire supported at the ends and acted on by its own weight.

What has that got to do with trusses sagging from heat putting more force on the columns than they already did?
You couldn't explain this pages ago, so why do you insist on re-hashing it?

The curve a hanging flexible wire or chain assumes when supported at its ends and acted upon by a uniform gravitational force

mathworld.wolfram.com...

Because when the trusses start sagging, they start behaving like a catenary. When they were stiff they did not. And thus the direction of the force changes. I have been saying this all along. Somehow you manage to read that I insist the load increased. How did you get to that idea?

Its really a very simple concept, and also well supported by experimental data. Do you deny this data? Why so?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because when the trusses start sagging, they start behaving like a catenary.

They sag because of thermal expansion. Do you dispute this or not?

If it's thermal expansion, why do you think this sagging from expansion is equivalent to a pulling force? Where is the science behind that? Do you have some sources, please? Not a source for what the definition of a centenary is, because you seem to be the only one confused about that.

reply to post by bsbray11


With both a lack of understanding and most of all an unwillingness to learn something it is useless to keep explaining it over and over. For me the most interesting part is to see how long a person like you (someone with a very firm believe) would keep holding position that is very easy to verify to be wrong. It turns out you will never give it up. Even pointing you to real life experimental data doesn't help, you just ignore it. It is Ironic though that a movement that calls itself the truth movement consists mostly of people that ignore reality (at least that is my experience). Anyway, for me this conversation isn't really interesting anymore. If you are still genuinely interested to find an answer to your question, reread the thread or read a couple of the links I pointed you to.

Originally posted by bsbray11

They sag because of thermal expansion. Do you dispute this or not?

In the initial stages of heating, they will thermally expand.

Heating will also result in thermal weakening.

So the sequence is

1- thermal expansion
2- thermal weakening
3- truss sagging

So no, they do not sag due to thermal expansion. they push during the early stage. Once they heat further, and weaken further, they sag.

Therefore, sag is caused by thermal weakening.

If it's thermal expansion, why do you think this sagging from expansion is equivalent to a pulling force?

You're confused about the sequence. first expansion, then further heating, then sagging caused by thermal weakening.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In the initial stages of heating, they will thermally expand.

And this results in sagging in the middle when the two ends of the beam/truss are restrained.

Heating will also result in thermal weakening.

And once again, for the steel to become like a big wet floppy noodle, it would have to reach temperatures that weren't shown or even suggested anywhere in the NIST report.

It was a good try though.

And before you try to resell me all your bull crap, why don't you use quotes from the NIST report next time? Maybe it'll help you not go quite so far out there.

reply to post by -PLB-


I guess you're giving up since that was nothing but a rant.

I've asked multiple times to see the scientific studies you're talking about and you always gloss over that. What you have posted before does not match your own arguments, which were confused and unclear to begin with.

A truss that suffers thermal expansion is not in any way shape or form a centenary, because the force is pushing outwards, and if anyone is being stubborn and unwilling to understand this, it's you.