If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Dave Rogers said:
Someone explained to me recently how deceleration wasn't necessary for collapse, though. Now who was that?

Dave
Click to expand...

Tough to keep the story straight when it's so dependent on lying. This is why there is only one "official story" as they call it. Because it's the truth.

The rest of us call it reality.
 
ozeco41 said:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

Me2 :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Agreed Ozzie... What would be interesting would be to see some discussion of post strike to downward movement take place... like what WAS going on inside those tops?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong..
Click to expand...

I personally think that the people who need to prove anything are the ones who claim explosives, arsonists, shills etc.

All this nonsense is just a distraction in the hope the money will keep coming IMO.
 
Spanx said:
I personally think that the people who need to prove anything are the ones who claim explosives, arsonists, shills etc.

All this nonsense is just a distraction in the hope the money will keep coming IMO.
Click to expand...

Distraction is not the word I would use, something that stinks and comes from the north end of a male bovine headed south would be more appropriate.

Tony, Cole, and Gage really need the money.:D
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire and making them deal with that which doesn't allow them to keep on stroking with nonsense.
Click to expand...

How's your new investigation coming along champ? How does it feel to be a failure after almost 16 years?

Maybe you should get some those guys on your little petition who are actually qualified to speak on this matter because you're obviously not. Makes one wonder why all those engineers on your petition never do anything. Hmmmm
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire and making them deal with that which doesn't allow them to keep on stroking with nonsense.
Click to expand...

In the first experiment in the video, Cole drops an arbitrary weight on some planks of cement board, and when the weight stops falling after breaking only a few of them, he concludes that this experiment proves that "pancake" collapse is impossible. Are you seriously suggesting that "nobody here will prove" that there's something seriously wrong with that logic?
 
WilliamSeger said:
In the first experiment in the video, Cole drops an arbitrary weight on some planks of cement board, and when the weight stops falling after breaking only a few of them, he concludes that this experiment proves that "pancake" collapse is impossible. Are you seriously suggesting that "nobody here will prove" that there's something seriously wrong with that logic?
Click to expand...

Tony's in a bit of a bind when you say things like that. Deep down, he knows that the whole Newton's Third Jonathan Cole's made up law argument that each upper floor can only destroy one lower floor is complete and utter bollocks. However, he can't actually admit that, because Cole's on his side, and admitting that someone on his side is talking complete and utter bollocks may give the impression that everyone on his side is talking complete and utter bollocks. So he'll sidestep the issue of whether he agrees with the Newton's Third Jonathan Cole's made up law argument ad infinitum, because being honest enough to even discuss the issue is personally impossible for him. It must make him very uncomfortable, and lead him to say some quite abusive things to relieve the cognitive dissonance.

Dave
 
WilliamSeger said:
In the first experiment in the video, Cole drops an arbitrary weight on some planks of cement board, and when the weight stops falling after breaking only a few of them, he concludes that this experiment proves that "pancake" collapse is impossible. Are you seriously suggesting that "nobody here will prove" that there's something seriously wrong with that logic?
Click to expand...

Please don't use the word logic in the same paragraph as one of Cole's Butchery of reason,
Fallacy is the most appropriate word we can use in a civil forum.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Tony's in a bit of a bind when you say things like that. Deep down, he knows that the whole Newton's Third Jonathan Cole's made up law argument that each upper floor can only destroy one lower floor is complete and utter bollocks. However, he can't actually admit that, because Cole's on his side, and admitting that someone on his side is talking complete and utter bollocks may give the impression that everyone on his side is talking complete and utter bollocks. So he'll sidestep the issue of whether he agrees with the Newton's Third Jonathan Cole's made up law argument ad infinitum, because being honest enough to even discuss the issue is personally impossible for him. It must make him very uncomfortable, and lead him to say some quite abusive things to relieve the cognitive dissonance.

Dave
Click to expand...

You'd think that a better strategy would be to focus on someone on his side who isn't talking complete and utter bollocks, huh.

But I can't find any, either.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
In the first experiment in the video, Cole drops an arbitrary weight on some planks of cement board, and when the weight stops falling after breaking only a few of them, he concludes that this experiment proves that "pancake" collapse is impossible. Are you seriously suggesting that "nobody here will prove" that there's something seriously wrong with that logic?
Click to expand...

The first problem in this model, and several others I have seen, is that the first drop is from a much greater height than all the following.
The first plank can break, because delta-PE is larger than what the plank can dissipate only on that first large drop. The next drops release far less PE - less than the planks dissipate - collapse is slowed and eventually stopped.

The WTC had equally spaced "planks" (floors; core beams) that were equally strong. If the first fails, then all the others must fail (as long as conditions stay within such bounds that the same mechanisms will be incurred), because all floors can dissipate the same amount of energy, while delta-PE increases from storey to storey as mass is acreted to the debris layer.

Any model that attempts to recreate the conditions for the real WTC collapse progression must make sure that drop heights are equal from first to last.
 
Oystein said:
The first problem in this model, and several others I have seen, is that the first drop is from a much greater height than all the following.
The first plank can break, because delta-PE is larger than what the plank can dissipate only on that first large drop. The next drops release far less PE - less than the planks dissipate - collapse is slowed and eventually stopped.

The WTC had equally spaced "planks" (floors; core beams) that were equally strong. If the first fails, then all the others must fail (as long as conditions stay within such bounds that the same mechanisms will be incurred), because all floors can dissipate the same amount of energy, while delta-PE increases from storey to storey as mass is acreted to the debris layer.

Any model that attempts to recreate the conditions for the real WTC collapse progression must make sure that drop heights are equal from first to last.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Gravitational PE, must be maintained and structural strength duplicated, any model that neglects the proper energy values will fail to duplicate the motions produced in the real events.
Tony and Cole have to know this, a model can be made that duplicates the motions, but
It would require better engineering than we have seen from Cole or Tony.

It would have to be 60ft lower section, and roughly 20 ft upper section, weighted properly, and sufficiently weak connection strength. 1/4 inch standard bolts, connecting floors.
That's what I used to duplicate the motions to duplicate the chemical reactions in the fires.
Used a winch to lift the top section then pulled the pin on the cable.
My winch truck had 150ft of cable, and I added another 350ft to suspend the 20ft section above a Clift.

The outer curtain wall was wire mess and thin metal.

I wasn't interested in Cole's arguments at the time just the chemistry, Cole wasn't even considered, nor was Tony.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Scaling is not necessary to explain the principle that deceleration is needed for amplified impact loading to occur.
Click to expand...

First thing, nice dodge. That is not the question under discussion.

The question is, “If you completely ignore Buckingham Pi-Theorem, scaling, & Dimensional Analysis (under the incompetent assertion that “only the direction of forces matter”, does your model produce reliable results?”

In other words, does Jonathan Cole possess some sort of Special Dispensation that allows him to ignore, in this one case, the same experimental procedures that every other competent experimenter has been required to follow for the past 150 years in order to make his experimental results be valid?

THAT is the pertinent question.

If (as I anticipate) you typically & incompetently assert that Cole is the one & only engineer on the planet who does get that Special "You Don't Have To Follow The Rules" Dispensation from Mother Nature, please, please explain to us WHY that is true.

And, in the process, shred the last remaining tatters of your mechanical engineering credibility?

Is it because he is so good looking?

Is it because he threatened Mother Nature that he would "hold his breath until he turned blue if she didn't give him his way"?

Is it because he's from Texas, & none of the rest of the world's rules apply there?

Can the rest of the world now also ignore the last 150 years of experimental procedures, the previously unyielding, inviolate requirement that we pay exquisite attention to scaling & dimensional analysis, and substitute the trivial-to-achieve "Cole's Law" that, "as long as your forces act in the correct direction, all experiments will give valid results, no matter how cluelessly conceived & executed."

Geeee, how much easier all those silly lab classes & annoyingly difficult-to-plan & bitch-to-execute experiments are going to be, now that we can build our models in any slip-shod manner, out of any material, and simply put linear bearings on our force applicators to make sure that those forces "act in the right direction".
__

As a related aside …

How long do you think that it will take before "Cole's Law” is enshrined on plaques hung on the walls of Engineering Labs across the globe?

Perhaps its arrival will be delayed because all those Plaque Engravers have been stymied, trying to figure out the graphic required to show a “moon-sized object serenely perched on top of a house” in order to memorialize “Bjorkman’s Law”?

By the way, when Cole, Bjorkman & you are fast-tracked into the National Academy of Engineering for your pioneering work on “the Special Theory of 9/11 Engineering”, will you be mounting a campaign to get Bazant tossed out on his keister?

While you’re taking care of that little issue, who is going to take on the job of getting him tossed from the US National Academy of Science? Who is going to take care of washing his stain from the National Academies of Engineering of Austria, England, Spain, Italy, Czechoslovakia & Europe?

How about getting his 7 honorary PhDs revoked? His von Karman medal, L’Hermite medal & his Timoshenko medal revoked?

You wouldn’t be so heartless as to strip him of his three “Zdenek Bazant medals”, would you?? (Well, in all fairness, ONLY TWO of those medals are named after him. One is named after his grandfather. The POSEUR...!!)

I think that it’s fair to say that it’ll be a cold day in hell before he’s up for the Szamboti Prize, eh Tony. Or The highly coveted Bjorkman Medal. Based on the last post above, doesn't look good for the Ozeco Award, either...
__

LMAO at Delusions of Engineering Mediocrity.

What do you think are the odds that Cole is Just Spouting Crappola because he publishes only on YouTubez for the consumption of ignorant amateurs?

How about the odds that, if he were to submit his Special Dispensation in a paper destined for a peer reviewed engineering journal, he'd be laughed out of contention?

Ahhhh. Now I think we're getting back to reality ...

tom

PS. Regarding your other “thoroughly thrashed, 10-years expired, equine”, it has been explained to you at least 100 times, in 10 different ways, that there is absolutely no need for an "amplified impact loading” to occur in order for the collapse to continue to the ground.

So the rest of your statement is irrelevant.
 
ozeco41 said:
Agreed. "Scaling" has been a "miss the main point" sidetrack taken by a lot of debunkers in their attempts at rebutting Coles models.
Click to expand...

O really?

Scaling is a "miss the main point sidetrack" in a thread whose title starts with the phrase, "If it doesn't agree with experiment, ..."

That's instructive to find out, oz.

You want to bet your "engineering credibility" on this assertion?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
First thing, nice dodge. That is not the question under discussion.

The question is, “If you completely ignore Buckingham Pi-Theorem, scaling, & Dimensional Analysis (under the incompetent assertion that “only the direction of forces matter”, does your model produce reliable results?”

In other words, does Jonathan Cole possess some sort of Special Dispensation that allows him to ignore, in this one case, the same experimental procedures that every other competent experimenter has been required to follow for the past 150 years in order to make his experimental results be valid?....

So the rest of your statement is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Snipped for brevity. I'd nominate this if only we still bothered with a vote on these matters around here.

eta: And for bringing back fond memories of Heiwa and the "5 mile drop" (I think it was ;))
 
Last edited:
I'd like to point out an interesting point.
Well, "interesting to me", at least.

ozeco41 said:
... Sander - like me - is not a signed and committed member of "The Group". We are both renegades ...
Click to expand...


JSanderO said:
Hell no... Sander is not part of any group... Most who think for themselves are not groupies.
Click to expand...

Szamboti, Cole, Bjorkman & Gage are also extraordinarily proud of the fact that they "aren't influenced by the consensus of experts within the pertinent field", but rather "think for themselves" in a field completely outside of their own fields of expertise (just like structural engineering, engineering modeling & collapse dynamics are for you, Sander & oz).

Perhaps a little reining in of the old ego, perhaps a little more credence to the opinions of real experts, perhaps a little less consensus of complete amateurs, would be a wiser choice.
 
tfk said:
OF COURSE you can scale mechanical interactions.

You simply have to scale them ... correctly.
Click to expand...

Exactly recreate the energy values of the real event in the model, one way is to lay the model on it's side and use mechanical energy equal to the gravitational PE.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
In the first experiment in the video, Cole drops an arbitrary weight on some planks of cement board, and when the weight stops falling after breaking only a few of them, he concludes that this experiment proves that "pancake" collapse is impossible. Are you seriously suggesting that "nobody here will prove" that there's something seriously wrong with that logic?
Click to expand...

By "pancake collapse", do you mean the floors failing first and then dragging the core structure down with it? If so, how on earth can that still be a viable explanation with the North Tower antenna dropping before the perimeter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom