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

[ozeco41]

This part fuels the confusion between pancake initiation and pancake progression.

FEMA had an early hypothesis about a first floor failing causing a pancake collapse. This theory is the one that you're talking about when you say that "[n]o one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct". That's FEMA's pancake initiation theory.

In the same paper, FEMA also gave an accurate description of collapse progression. To my knowledge no one has dismissed it; people have at most refined it.

Cole's setup conflates both. His aim seems to be to prove that pancake progression is impossible.

Yes. Fully understood and fully agreed. The reference was to FEMA's "Pancake initiation" which is the one commonly misrepresented by truthers - including all those many failures to differentiate "initiation" from "progression". I'm more cynical on Cole's aim. I think his aim is to mislead the gullible. I find it hard to accept that any practising qualified engineer could genuinely NOT understand the basic issues of applied physics. You may recall my many references to my first Internet post:

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

Cole IMO is playing the Szamboti SOP Trick. Baffle the gullible with engineering looking gobbledegook. (On another forum I just played round the umpteenth showing Tony the error of his ways with his STATIC nonsense about the DYNAMIC process.)

I wrote the "DRAFT" as a quick first effort. Looking for suggestions. Following the processing example set by jaydeehess with his "Summary" - hence the flag "DRAFT"

 

[Sunstealer]

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together. Thermite could have been used to weaken connections, and that would reduce the amount and strength of the explosives necessary for CD.

Oh that's a beautiful Stundie.

Clearly shows that you cannot think things through and have no understanding of what thermite is or how it works nor the effect of it burning at 2000°C would have on explosives that by design would have to be placed right next to the thermite.

You don't need an experiment to show what the effect is, just a little bit of knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge isn't your strong point.

Oh and Cole's ludicrously named "Eutectic Steel" (there's no such thing) video was debunked 5 years ago when the likes of Senenmut and Chritopher7 used to bring it up.

Jon Cole doesn't understand what a eutectic is and doesn't understand that you cannot determine the presence of that lamella structure using the naked eye. You need to prepare a specimen using metallographic techniques and visual microscopy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Where is your experiment?

Why do we need experiment, the science has been know for over 100 years.

Note from this paper written in 1976, 40 years ago.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/7224692/

Thermal Decompusition

The term, one-step regeneration, is generally used in reference to the reductive decomposition of calcium sulfate to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. The thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate is, however, a logical
introduction to the reductive decomposition processes, both technically and historically speaking. As early as 1903, investigators began to study the thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate alone and with additives to produce
sulfur dioxide and a cement clinker. By 1916, an experimental plant was built in Leverkusen, Germany to produce a sufficiently concentrated sulfur dioxide gas and a good cement clinker by the decomposition of calcium sulfate using a carbon reductant. The plant operated successfully from 1918 to 1931, when it was closed for economic reasons. The process, known as the Mueller-Kuhne process, is the basis for several large plants operating in England and Western Europe.

Heating Calcium Sulphate (Gypsum) in the presence of carbon to temperatures of between 1,000 and 1,230 Celsius results in the Gypsum decomposing into Sulphur Dioxide. The WTC piles were filled with gypsum (the main component of sheet rock) and sadly carbon. They were at temperatures of piles were around 1,100 degrees C, right in this target range.

So all of the requirements were there for the Gypsum to decompose into Sulphur Dioxide, so why is that dangerous to the steel? Well by itself it isn't, however remember what the fire crews were doing? Pouring waters onto the piles to put out the fires and cool them down, and what happens when Sulphur Dioxide meets water?

http://classroom.synonym.com/happens-so2-reacts-steel-23499.html

In its pure form, sulphur dioxide does not react strongly with metal alloys such as steel. However, in the presence of defects and water, sulphur dioxide can be highly corrosive.
....
In the absence of water, sulphur dioxide does not react strongly with steel. However, if sulphur dioxide is exposed to the atmosphere it reacts with water vapor and oxygen forming corrosive sulphuric acid. This substance is highly corrosive and can damage steel.

So simple. Heated Calcium Sulphate (Gypsum) in the presence of carbon in the piles decomposes into Sulphur Dioxide which reacts with the water being added and turns into Sulphuric Acid on the Steel. No Experimentation needed, just some basic chemistry. If you want the experiment though....

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why do we need experiment, the science has been know for over 100 years.

Note from this paper written in 1976, 40 years ago.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/7224692/

Thermal Decompusition

The term, one-step regeneration, is generally used in reference to the reductive decomposition of calcium sulfate to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. The thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate is, however, a logical
introduction to the reductive decomposition processes, both technically and historically speaking. As early as 1903, investigators began to study the thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate alone and with additives to produce
sulfur dioxide and a cement clinker. By 1916, an experimental plant was built in Leverkusen, Germany to produce a sufficiently concentrated sulfur dioxide gas and a good cement clinker by the decomposition of calcium sulfate using a carbon reductant. The plant operated successfully from 1918 to 1931, when it was closed for economic reasons. The process, known as the Mueller-Kuhne process, is the basis for several large plants operating in England and Western Europe.

Heating Calcium Sulphate (Gypsum) in the presence of carbon to temperatures of between 1,000 and 1,230 Celsius results in the Gypsum decomposing into Sulphur Dioxide. The WTC piles were filled with gypsum (the main component of sheet rock) and sadly carbon. They were at temperatures of piles were around 1,100 degrees C, right in this target range.

So all of the requirements were there for the Gypsum to decompose into Sulphur Dioxide, so why is that dangerous to the steel? Well by itself it isn't, however remember what the fire crews were doing? Pouring waters onto the piles to put out the fires and cool them down, and what happens when Sulphur Dioxide meets water?

http://classroom.synonym.com/happens-so2-reacts-steel-23499.html

In its pure form, sulphur dioxide does not react strongly with metal alloys such as steel. However, in the presence of defects and water, sulphur dioxide can be highly corrosive.
....
In the absence of water, sulphur dioxide does not react strongly with steel. However, if sulphur dioxide is exposed to the atmosphere it reacts with water vapor and oxygen forming corrosive sulphuric acid. This substance is highly corrosive and can damage steel.

So simple. Heated Calcium Sulphate (Gypsum) in the presence of carbon in the piles decomposes into Sulphur Dioxide which reacts with the water being added and turns into Sulphuric Acid on the Steel. No Experimentation needed, just some basic chemistry. If you want the experiment though....

Yes and FF and Criteria, say Cole is credible, and I am not, but them I don't give any one of the threeof them any Credibility at all.

 

[rwguinn]

More ironic, it's coming from someone who didn't even know how many buildings collapsed on 9/11.

Dave

We could also label this "a case study on the reactions to jet-propelled goal posts"..

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

We could also label this "a case study on the reactions to jet-propelled goal posts"..

Entanglement transported Goal post is more like it.

They seem to be disappearing and reappearing as if they were being disassembled and reassembled and transported faster than light though teleportation some how.

However I don't know apparently my understanding of physics is faulty, as I can not understand FF's and Criteria's Massacre of simple Newtonian physics.

 

[Gamolon]

Please post where I have said, in this thread, that 9/11 was an inside job.

Are you kidding me?

I spent three years trying to prove to myself that the official story was true. Eventually I could no longer fool myself, and I had to accept the fact that the official 9/11 story is an absurd lie.

Believing that the "official story is a lie" means you think that someone is covering things up, therefore conspiracy/inside job.

The few people that do question the official story often end up here because they find the truth, but refuse to accept it because they don't want to believe that the government lied to them.

You believe the government lied about what happened? That means you believe in a conspiracy/inside job concocted by the government to hide the truth.

Quit with the charades already.

 

[pgimeno]

I wrote the "DRAFT" as a quick first effort. Looking for suggestions.

That's what I gave (implicitly: the explicit suggestion would be: "better separate initiation and progression and point out Cole's conflation")

 

[FalseFlag]

Excuse me using your post Crazy C - I thought it was time we listed the main problems with Cole's nonsense experiments. So here goes:

DRAFT #1

The Main Errors With the Jonathan Cole Experiments

First Experiment "Cement Planks"
- Cole's stated aim to show that the FEMA "Pancake Theory" as wrong.

1) Strawman. No one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct.
2) The model tests strength of variable numbers of planks set up as simply supported single span beams hit by a central impact load.
FALSE - the actual WTC 9/11 collapse was led by failure of the floor joist end connections. The failure mechanism was not beam failure of floor joists in bending.

Cole acknowledges that NIST dismissed the FEMA Pancake Theory. So that experiment is self rebutting for purposes of discussions occurring in this thread

Second Experiment "Pile Driver"
- Coles aim is to show that Bazant's "Crush down . crush up" model wouldn't work.

1) Also strawman in that "crush down crush up" is not a valid model for WTC Twins collapse.
(Recognising that significant numbers of debunkers dispute that simple fact. I'm addressing Cole v Reality. We already know or should know that Bazant cd>cu does not apply to WTC)
2) He puts columns in line - not valid as a model of the real event.

AND - irony - 3) he doesn't actually rebut Bazant's claim for "cd > cu" whether or not Bazant was right applying it to WTC. Bazant's 1D approximated generic model is IMO almost certainly correct for a traditional building design which is more "homogeneous in plan" so that the 1D assumption is more valid. Cole FAILED where Bazant is IMO correct.

Third Experiment "House of Cards"
- Coles aim to weaken the supports to see if he can make Bazant's cd > cu mechanism work.

1) Still off track strawman because cd>cu does not apply to WTC collapses
2) He still has - much weakened - columns in line. Not the real mechanism which had columns bypassed.

Fourth Experiment "Paper Loops"
- Cole's aim to make the supports weaker

1) It is still "columns in line"
2) Probably plagiarised unacknowledged from psikeyhackr
whose paper loops models have been subject of extended discussion and replication/adaptations of the modelling onm other forums.

NOTE: The fundamental problem is that he - and those who fall for the same error
- are trying to weaken the main vertical support AKA the "columns" or analogies for columns
- whilst still requiring the columns to support the full weight of the tower above that level.
The real event it wasn't the columns which failed. It was the connections of each individual floor.
- which only had to support one floor
- and the support for one floor could never hold up more than about five more floors is carefully applied - not dropped.

Fifth Experiment - "Exp 4 Plus set it on fire"
- it is hard to credit that a qualified engineer would make this stupid assertion.
- the only effect of fire is to remove columns AKA paper loops.
- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.
- What difference would it make if the dropping was by manual release OR by burning out the paper?

So the common error of models 2 thru 5 is that he puts columns in line which was not the mechanism of WTC 9/11 - so his experiments are invalid from that point without any need to consider more details EXCEPT for the interest in exploring details which are moot.

Hence my multiple comments that discussion of scale or other details is irrelevant. The starting premise is false. Forget the details which are moot.

And the error of model 1 is also a variant of "wrong model" - not applicable to WTC 9/11 real event mechanism.

So - in brief - Cole is WRONG. Those who say "Cole is WRONG" are correct.


- and credibility does not need to enter into discussion.

Are there any links to experiments anywhere in this?

I didn't see any. Instead, I only see words. What I don't see are posts similar to this whenever some nutjob does an experiment showing a progressive collapse. I wonder why.

- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.

Are you sure you meant to post that?

 

[pgimeno]

Who the hell In his right mind engages in debate on whether 2+2=4 or 296?

Right on. Plus engaging in such a debate risks creating an impression that the truth might be somewhere in between. As the adage goes,

"Some say the sky is blue, some say the sky is green. The truth must be something in between".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

 

[ozeco41]

That's what I gave (implicitly: the explicit suggestion would be: "better separate initiation and progression and point out Cole's conflation")

 

[Dave Rogers]

WTF would anyone need to do that?

FlaseFlag has, right from the start, been asking for an experiment that proves Cole's experiments to be wrong. Since Cole's experiments are what they are, what he's asking for is by definition impossible, and by focusing on it he hopes to obscure the real issue, which is that Cole's experiments are not predictive of the specific features of the WTC collapses that Cole seeks to ascribe to explosives. The whole bait-and-switch argument by which Cole's arguments are demonstrations of basic principles except when they're not, and not intended to reproduce the actual motions of the towers except when they are, is another level of deception to try to reinforce this. As Peter Cook put it, "It could confuse a stupid person."

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

Quote:
- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.

Are you sure you meant to post that?

Yes - I'm sure. The construction of his propagandist video shows a level of cunning intention to mislead or deceive. Anyone capable of that level of cunning should see the error of logic I identify therefore I think Cole is pretending to be stupid.

Are there any links to experiments anywhere in this?

And you don't fool me by trying the same trick. You do not need experiments to prove that an experiment is wrong. As Dave Rogers says it is by definition impossible. Even if that were not true you would need to be able to define the experiment- and If you cannot see the obvious faults of definition with Cole's experiments how can you define a "meta experiment"? And I don't accept your pretence that you cannot see.

I didn't see any. Instead, I only see words. What I don't see are posts similar to this whenever some nutjob does an experiment showing a progressive collapse. I wonder why.

So you say. I don't believe you. Doesn't matter - there are many others prepared to play your game.

 

[Oystein]

ozeco,

there is another flaw in several of Cole's experiments - and also in experiments previously done by other truthers, such as psikey, Richard Gage and others (a collection can be found here):

I. The first drop is much larger than the following drops (story heights, if you will).
Plus:
II. The first floor would not collapse if the top was dropped from a height of no more than 1 story.



I have formed an ad-hoc hypothesis:

Assuming we have a building with the following properties:

1. It has identifiable stories
2. of equal height
3. and of equal weight
4. and of equivalent strength^[1]

Further assuming we destroy critical supports on one story, such that a top section drops, essentially unresisted, through the height of no more than one story before hitting supports that have original strength.
IF the top segment's momentum is not arrested within one story
THEN the collapse will not arrest at all
PROVIDED the same failure mode applies on all stories.

Cole shows a few CDs gone wrong - where (concrete) buildings drop a few stories and then, surprisingly, arrest with a thump. Obviously, they run into some discontinuity - one or several of my assumptions aren't satisfied.



Note:
^[1] I am not sure yet how to express this - I think an equal capacity:load ratio is good. I could be wrong: The WTC floors had absolute equal capacities, the columns (roughly) proportionally equal capacities.

 

[BasqueArch]

How many eyewitnesses reported space beams? Zero.

How many eyewitnesses reported seeing, hearing, or being affected by explosions? More than 100.

The results are in. Explosions lose by a score of 377-55.​

​

From the first responder accounts:
13% Described tower collapses as “Explosion/Like an explosion”- 55
87% Described tower collapses as “Rumble/huge rumbling, etc.,Sound like a Jet/Jet engine,Roar , Like a train/locomotives, Like an earthquake,Like thunder/thunderous, using other terms.”-377


From Gravy, October 2006: First responder accounts reviewed 603

I haven't quantified all of my notes on the above categories of explosions, but I have broken down how people described hearing the collapse of the towers themselves. Most of the accounts are from FDNY and Port Authority Police interviews. I reviewed 603 of these.

First responder accounts reviewed 603
Descriptions of collapses noted 432

Described tower collapses as “Rumble/huge rumbling, etc.” 186 accounts
Described tower collapses as “Explosion/Like an explosion” 55
Described tower collapses as “Sound like a Jet/Jet engine” 42
Described tower collapses as “Roar” 35
Described tower collapses as “Like a train/locomotive” 23
Described tower collapses as “Like thunder/thunderous” 9
Described tower collapses as “Like an earthquake” 7
Described tower collapses using other terms (see below) 75
​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1997183#post1997183
No explosives, thermite or CD, but fire and damage caused the collapse of the Three Towers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

IF the top segment's momentum is not arrested within one story
THEN the collapse will not arrest at all
PROVIDED the same failure mode applies on all stories.

More or less, that's how I would see it. It may be slightly modified in the light of the greater strength of lower storeys. But it's not a major perturbation, given that the excess of energy in the case of the WTC was about an order of magnitude even for the most resistive failure mode.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oops, Sorry for repost. I just noticed the link was messed up.


Buildings that have been prepped ready for demolition are in a precarious state, they have been weakend ready for the charges to finish the job.
Recently in the UK a power station turbine hall was being prepped for demolition but it collapsed while contractors were still working on it. A number of them were killed.
Witnesses decribed it as sounding like an explosion. Gravity did it
Look at the pictures, it collapsed in to its own footprint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766

I was at school with one of the men that was killed.

 

[kmortis]

Do not continue with the personalization of this topic. The topic is not the other posters. It isn't even yourself, when you get down to it. Any more personalization will be met with continued moderation action, and for this action there is plenty of evidence.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco,

there is another flaw in several of Cole's experiments - and also in experiments previously done by other truthers, such as psikey, Richard Gage and others (a collection can be found here):

An interesting challenge.

I'll limit myself to some preliminary comments - I should be engaged in some horizontally polarised inactivity - 0217 in this time zone as I type.

I. The first drop is much larger than the following drops (story heights, if you will).
Plus:
II. The first floor would not collapse if the top was dropped from a height of no more than 1 story.

Two issues are the same traps we regularly see on this topic:
1) Be explicit whether you are (A) discussing an abstract or even a constructable model which is NOT WTC OR (B) discussing the WTC Real event; AND
2) Be sure how you get to "dropping the distance of 'x'" whether one floor or not. Because that did not happen in WTC real event.

Now both those comments refer to a not WTC scenario.

Both are true for the not WTC situation.

The first one - the need for a much larger initiating drop is a direct consequence of the models being "columns in line". The FIRST drop has to "crush" - or buckle - the columns or column analogies in most of Cole's models and psikey's paper loops model.

The second one - wouldn't initiate with less than one story drop is also true. For a columns in line model.

So I am unsure what you are identifying as "another flaw" in those models. The flaw I identify is the faulty premise - they are "columns in line" models. The additional aspects you identify are direct consequences of the columns in line model. Valid if that is what you want to model. Invalid if applied to WTC

Am I missing something?

Let's refresh the WTC real event which Cole does not model.

1) No free fall drop - the cascade initiation sequence caused the "Top Block" to "scrunch down" onto the lower structure;^##2) It missed the column on column impact - columns not in line.
3) The weak link was the floor joist connectors for the OOS floor spans and the horizontal beam to column connections in the core. All of those designed for 1 floor level loading and initially subjected to multiple floor loadings which even statically applied would near certain gave caused failure.
4) Dynamically applied...game over.

Now the two flaws you listed above are definitely not in that WTC scenario.

Turning to your hypothesis:

I have formed an ad-hoc hypothesis:

Assuming we have a building with the following properties:

1. It has identifiable stories
2. of equal height
3. and of equal weight
4. and of equivalent strength^[1]

Further assuming we destroy critical supports on one story, such that a top section drops, essentially unresisted, through the height of no more than one story before hitting supports that have original strength.
IF the top segment's momentum is not arrested within one story THEN the collapse will not arrest at allPROVIDED the same failure mode applies on all stories.

Agreed unreservedly. At risk of confusing the issue - that is the Bazant and Zhou limit case argument. (But does not trigger the unresolved remnant concerns that Bazant may have got his sums wrong as per Sz, Sz and Johns. Your premise "IF it is not arrested...." ensures success. And it will propagate as per the unquestioned bit that there is no doubt Bazant got right)

Cole shows a few CDs gone wrong - where (concrete) buildings drop a few stories and then, surprisingly, arrest with a thump. Obviously, they run into some discontinuity - one or several of my assumptions aren't satisfied.

I'll take a rain check on that - every case is situation specific. I would need to look at specifics. Much harder than the task of the last eight years for me - I've only needed to consider two options - "is WTC" and "is not WTC"

Note:
^[1] I am not sure yet how to express this - I think an equal capacity:load ratio is good. I could be wrong: The WTC floors had absolute equal capacities, the columns (roughly) proportionally equal capacities.

Yes - uniformity a big factor in the WTC scenarios. Do you want to explore an abstract Not WTC scenario OR the real WTC event? OR a generic which incorporates the lot - which I don't think is possible.

As I said - quick first thoughts only.

I'm off to sleep.




^## A point I've not made often BUT we are seeing what is probably Tony Szamboti's biggest (only??) success. all the discussion of Szamboti's misapplication of Bazant seems to have firmly planted the "drop to impact" concept in a lot of minds. It is the unwritten and unstated presumption in most of those discussions I've had to walk away from going back to 2010.

Think "scrunch" not "drop" unless by "drop" you specifically mean "go lower but not by falling through a gap"

 

[jsfisher]

I am asking you about a claim you made first on March 13 as near as I can tell. A claim you made; yours; not anyone else's. When I questioned you about it then, you had trouble focusing; you repeatedly tried to shift the conversation away from the towers to WTC 7. You are doing that again, here, just to a different distraction.

Focus, please.

You claimed WTC 1 collapsed with constant acceleration. Please support that claim.

Be patient. It's coming.

Still waiting.