It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 17
420
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
In order for the thermate theory to even be considered, people would have to prove that 200+ experts got their information wrong.


It has nothing to do with "200+ experts", which is misleading to begin with they never say that all of those people were in agreement of NIST's conclusions. NIST's own 19-year veteran fire expert brought up concerns before Congress regarding NIST's investigation:


During a House Science Committee hearing on the key findings and recommendations of the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) investigation into World Trade Center collapse, a fire expert raises several concerns. James Quintiere is a professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, with over 35 years of experience in fire research. He’d worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, and is a former chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science, which is the principal world forum for fire research. In his statement presented at the hearing, Quintiere lists several specific concerns that he’d submitted to NIST, but which were never acknowledged or answered. These include:
bullet “Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?”
bullet “Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel [from the WTC] was discarded.… A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.”
bullet “NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art.… But the validation of these modeling results is in question.”
bullet “The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role.… Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?”
Quintiere also complains, “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.” [US Congress. House. Committee on Science, 10/26/2005]


www.historycommons.org...


Most of those "experts" who were "consulted" or whatever the term was, by NIST, probably either worked a desk job doing CAD work or maybe got a single consultative phone call that may or may not have even been used in the report. Popular Mechanics pulled a similar stunt when they claimed they had consulted a whole list of experts for one of their magazine articles, but it turned out that only 2 or 3 of the experts listed had anything to do with the information they actually published in their report.

And what are 200 engineers compared to 1500+ architects and engineering professionals that AE911 has signed on, for example? That's if you think the numbers of people are what determines whether something is scientific or not, which I don't anyway. It's the data (or lack thereof) supporting NIST's hypothesis that has people "concerned."


Hobbyists editing YouTube clips cannot debunk the original story.


The "original story" as per NIST had no evidence to begin with so there is nothing to begin. And according to the scientific method, if you have any faith in it at all, yes, anyone can debunk anything with the proper demonstration of proof.

If you want to wade through all the doubletalk and gobbledy-gook in that report, why don't you find me where they actually prove their collapse initiation hypothesis? You know, with a physical demonstration of the mechanism, or the mathematics proving it, anything along those lines? If you're just now finding the NIST report then you've got a lot of reading to do. Anyway I'll be waiting to see the actual proof you think is in that report versus misleading summaries posted on their website for the sole purpose of trying to dissuade all the heavy criticisms they've naturally encountered.


Since they lack the education, experiences, and credentials, hobbyists have absolutely no credibility in comparison.


Who are you calling a "hobbyist"? Jonathan Cole is a career engineer himself, not that it would make any difference considering he shows you in the video everything he does so you can try it yourself. Look at AE911's member list. They have thousands of non-professional members and over 1500+ who are verified (you have to send them certifying documents) architects or engineering professionals. And that's just one internet-based organization of professionals.


After reading the government's assessments, my faith in the original analysis is even stronger.


Then you're obviously not familiar with technical reports.

There was one professional (career) engineer on these forums who praised the NIST report, until she actually read it, and then guess what? She changed her whole tune and even fired a NIST employee from one of her engineering teams because she said she had lost all respect for their whole organization. I guess that's the difference between a "trained eye" for technical writing and a layman who just wants to believe.

Btw her username is Valhall and she's one of the 3 amingos' wives if I'm not mistaken.
edit on 21-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
When it comes to the puffs of smoke theory (due to demolitions), the above explanation is both believable and understandable. As each level collapsed downward, the air pressure within the lower levels blew out the windows.


This is only a believable explanation if you also believe the cartoons where Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff but doesn't start falling until he looks down.

Explain the following:

1) How does air pressure accumulate when the floors are being destroyed so violently that solid debris, dust and gases are escaping constantly to the atmosphere outside? Maybe you need to review some physics and what is required to compress air before you understand the significance of this question.

2) Why do you assume floors fell as a uniform, air-tight surface, and what actual evidence is this supposed to be based on? If the trusses broke apart and the slabs were cracked and torn apart, as I think we all witnessed, then you again have a container that is as air-tight as a sieve.

3) If it was just air then why are large pieces of solid debris and clouds of dust also seen gushing out of the sides of the towers, hundreds of feet out into the air? And why only in isolated bursts instead of the whole side of the building blowing out, if a floor is falling onto it?






4) Why is the air bursting out random windows on the perimeter when the only ventilation shafts where air could travel between floors, were in the core? You're saying that the air was compressed, went down these shafts in the core, picked a random floor to escape into out of all the floors below the collapsing area, and then rocketed out like bullets across many feet of furnished office space to blow out random windows. That is not how gases behave.

5) There is testimony from people who survived the collapses from inside the core, that air was being sucked upwards during the collapse, towards the gigantic and ever-increasing hole that was replacing the building structure.


I could go on but if you don't already get the picture then you're not going to.

The most obvious flaw with this whole air pressure this is that there was no way for the pressure to accumulate. As soon as any floor could have began falling, aside from it being impossible to fall as a uniform, air-tight sheet, the whole area above it would have been the path of least resistance to all escaping gases. Pressure would NOT continue to accumulate below the collapse when all the sides and top of the buildings were being ripped to shreds all around the same physical space.
edit on 21-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do not confuse 911 deniers with logic. I think we should make a distinction, between truthers and people who are only looking for their theory to win, no matter the facts.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Wow Pteridine is still hanging on strong huh? Where is the rest of the crew? Hopefully doing some actual research to try to discredit Mr. Cole hopefully instead of dodging the topic of the thread all together (which is that crudely made thermite/thermate can easily cut throught steel beams with the right delivery system) .



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Now you are starting to think. Keep going, the logic will lead you to the truth.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Section31
 

So basically what you are saying is that anything the govt does is none of my business as a taxpayer.

Wow! You took what I said out of context, and then spun it to fit into a new narrative.

What I said was - Its not anyone's business who was apart of the investigation. Sure, its good to know what transpired, but the specific names, dates, and locations of who were involved are not important. Also, after seeing how many 9/11 conspiracy theorist act like animals online, I can understand why specifics were left out of the report.
edit on 21-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain the following:

1) How does air pressure accumulate when the floors are being destroyed so violently that solid debris, dust and gases are escaping constantly to the atmosphere outside?


That's because a particular floor structure does exist in more or less solid form for a while, before it gets smashed against the other.




2) Why do you assume floors fell as a uniform, air-tight surface, and what actual evidence is this supposed to be based on? If the trusses broke apart and the slabs were cracked and torn apart, as I think we all witnessed, then you again have a container that is as air-tight as a sieve.


I doubt anyone claimed it was air-tight. If you puncture an inflated plastic bag in a few places, you'll see it generates jets of air for a short period of time before pressure drops



3) If it was just air then why are large pieces of solid debris and clouds of dust also seen gushing out of the sides of the towers, hundreds of feet out into the air? And why only in isolated bursts instead of the whole side of the building blowing out, if a floor is falling onto it?


I don't know a satisfactory answer, but I would guess parts of ceiling paneling were coming down due to a concussion/stress/whatever. If you have a few hundred square yards falling down, it's bound to generate pressure.



4) Why is the air bursting out random windows on the perimeter when the only ventilation shafts where air could travel between floors, were in the core? You're saying that the air was compressed, went down these shafts in the core, picked a random floor to escape into out of all the floors below the collapsing area, and then rocketed out like bullets across many feet of furnished office space to blow out random windows. That is not how gases behave.


First, look at my argument above. Second, the building is not a simple rectangular volume being compressed. It does have a complex structure that can generate flows.




5) There is testimony from people who survived the collapses from inside the core, that air was being sucked upwards during the collapse, towards the gigantic and ever-increasing hole that was replacing the building structure.


Of course. That doesn't mean that air wouldn't be expelled from the collapsing volume through the sides.


The most obvious flaw with this whole air pressure this is that there was no way for the pressure to accumulate. As soon as any floor could have began falling, aside from it being impossible to fall as a uniform, air-tight sheet, the whole area above it would have been the path of least resistance to all escaping gases.


That's not correct. If you have an accumulating mass of debris falling down, the sides are the path of least resistance.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



In order for the thermate theory to even be considered, people would have to prove that 200+ experts got their information wrong.


That's a wierd statement...
Many century old theories have been proven wrong by one person...
I see little sense in your comment...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Kinda tough to generate jets of air (actually jets of debris) while having a 757 sized hole in the building

Logic alone tells me the air (ummm...debris) would exit the big, fat, airplane hole before building pressure to
produce a jet of air (*cough* debris).



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Section31
In order for the thermate theory to even be considered, people would have to prove that 200+ experts got their information wrong.


It has nothing to do with "200+ experts", which is misleading to begin with they never say that all of those people were in agreement of NIST's conclusions.

Did you actually read the report, or are you nick-picking in hopes of being right? Basically, since the report doesn't tell you 'all the details', there has to be something wrong with the report? Its sounds like some of you want to know what type of toilet paper they used, so you can do a forensic examination to find out what they ate before doing the report. Give me a break.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Kinda tough to generate jets of air (actually jets of debris) while having a 757 sized hole in the building

Logic alone tells me the air (ummm...debris) would exit the big, fat, airplane hole before building pressure to
produce a jet of air (*cough* debris).


Volume of air inside the building was segregated into floors.

Enough said.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by turbofan
Kinda tough to generate jets of air (actually jets of debris) while having a 757 sized hole in the building

Logic alone tells me the air (ummm...debris) would exit the big, fat, airplane hole before building pressure to
produce a jet of air (*cough* debris).


Volume of air inside the building was segregated into floors.

Enough said.


Some of them puffs are 20 floors below the actual collapse..
I find it hare to believe the air managed to find it's way down that far so quickly and with that force..



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I find it hare to believe the air managed to find it's way down that far so quickly and with that force..


I know! On the other hand, human gut is quite convoluted yet people manage to f@rt, sometimes with biblical force.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Some of them puffs are 20 floors below the actual collapse..
I find it hare to believe the air managed to find it's way down that far so quickly and with that force..

So, there is no way other floors, below the point of impact, had started to suffer from stress? As a result of the stress caused by the impact, those lower floors could not in anyway have started to collapse?

Come on. Seriously?

How do you know if the center didn't collapse before the outer structure?

edit on 21-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 

In order for the govt to know how CT act online, they would have to monitor such sites. Im assuming that you believe so. In my experience here I have seen more people defending the OS act like animals than the other way around. If the govt is monitoring this site, then by that logic its no doubt they also have plants here to spread disinfo. The point was already brought up that these stats you are throwing around could be manufactured and without any sort of information on who these "200+" professionals are or their credentials, these stats provided by NIST have no verification. A simple "Dr. John Doe from Hamburger University" would suffice. That was just an example. They do not have to provide a mailing address or cell phone number. They do so on a regular basis when it is something that isnt so taboo. Why is it we know exactly who these professionals are that are providing us with evidence contrary to the NIST report? The trusters that go along with the OS act like animals sometimes as well, yet they have all the info they need to harass those people. If everything in the OS were true, then there really isnt anything to hide, just makes them look more guilty IMO.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 



So, there is no way other floors, below the point of impact, had started to suffer from stress? As a result from the stress caused by the impact, those lower floors could not in anyway have started to collapse?

Come on. Seriously?


Suffering stress will NOT create air..
I see little to no collapse occuring on those lower floors at the time of the puffs..

As for the "fart" idea of the other poster..

Funny as it is, there is still a clear passage from our mouth to our anus..
One that many posters tend to over utilise..



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain the following:

1) How does air pressure accumulate when the floors are being destroyed so violently that solid debris, dust and gases are escaping constantly to the atmosphere outside?


That's because a particular floor structure does exist in more or less solid form for a while, before it gets smashed against the other.


Right, but are you saying the floors are causing "air" to be forced violently out of random windows before they are smashed into, or after they are smashed into?



I doubt anyone claimed it was air-tight. If you puncture an inflated plastic bag in a few places, you'll see it generates jets of air for a short period of time before pressure drops


Open the whole top of the plastic bag, and let air escape there at the same time, and see if it does the same thing. If you don't have an air-tight container you can't build up pressure. There is no two ways about that, unless you don't understand the physics of what we are talking about.


I don't know a satisfactory answer, but I would guess parts of ceiling paneling were coming down due to a concussion/stress/whatever.


Well you said it yourself, you don't know a satisfactory answer. Parts of ceiling paneling coming down will rocket dust and solid debris out hundreds of feet into the air, yeah right.




4) Why is the air bursting out random windows on the perimeter when the only ventilation shafts where air could travel between floors, were in the core? You're saying that the air was compressed, went down these shafts in the core, picked a random floor to escape into out of all the floors below the collapsing area, and then rocketed out like bullets across many feet of furnished office space to blow out random windows. That is not how gases behave.


First, look at my argument above.


Look at my responses above.


Second, the building is not a simple rectangular volume being compressed. It does have a complex structure that can generate flows.


I took the complex shape of the building into consideration already when I told you the only vents allowing air to travel between floors were in the core. Unless you think the air is also traveling through 4-5 inches of solid concrete and steel truss pans that were underneath every floor. You also haven't explained why the bursts are coming out in relatively narrow bursts when you see to think entire floors are causing this effect.




5) There is testimony from people who survived the collapses from inside the core, that air was being sucked upwards during the collapse, towards the gigantic and ever-increasing hole that was replacing the building structure.


Of course. That doesn't mean that air wouldn't be expelled from the collapsing volume through the sides.


Your responses don't even make sense when compared with each other. First you say such-and-such is being forced downwards to blow solid debris and dust out so many floors down, now you accept testimony that the air suction was upward through the enormous hole being created in the buildings, and somehow don't have any problem reconciling these ideas. I can only guess because you haven't thought about them simultaneously. Somehow air flow is being forced both up and down at the same time according to you, all beneath the collapsing region.




The most obvious flaw with this whole air pressure this is that there was no way for the pressure to accumulate. As soon as any floor could have began falling, aside from it being impossible to fall as a uniform, air-tight sheet, the whole area above it would have been the path of least resistance to all escaping gases.


That's not correct. If you have an accumulating mass of debris falling down, the sides are the path of least resistance.


Oh yeah, right, and which law of physics are you citing again? Can I see that from a credible source, that the "sides" (wrong direction, it was down several floors then a 90 degree angle turn, not just "the sides") are automatically the path of least resistance when there is a huge gaping hole right overhead?


Basically you are saying "lalala I can't hear you, I'm right anyway!"

The "accumulating mass of debris falling down" is air-tight how? Do you really not think an air-tight container is necessary to accumulate pressure? Do you know what "accumulate pressure" means? It means you take air that is across a big space, and compress all of it into a smaller space. The air, naturally, resists this by being forced out anywhere it can. And you somehow think it's going to be forced down narrow tubes within the core, to reach random floors many floors beneath the collapsing area, instead of just going out the freaking hole right above it, where all the air was flowing towards even according to witnesses in the building?
edit on 21-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by backinblack
Some of them puffs are 20 floors below the actual collapse..
I find it hare to believe the air managed to find it's way down that far so quickly and with that force..

So, there is no way other floors, below the point of impact, had started to suffer from stress? As a result of the stress caused by the impact, those lower floors could not in anyway have started to collapse?

Come on. Seriously?

How do you know if the center didn't collapse before the outer structure?

edit on 21-12-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


Pteridine already posted a video in which he believes shows the core supports still standing. Thanks for stating that they could have collapsed first, which if it were true, then that would be indisputable proof that what he was seeing in his video was in fact the outer supports that were still standing. How could they collapse first unless of course they were cut somehow?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by bsbray11
 



In order for the thermate theory to even be considered, people would have to prove that 200+ experts got their information wrong.


That's a wierd statement...
Many century old theories have been proven wrong by one person...
I see little sense in your comment...


You mis-attributed that post; I didn't post it.

Though I agree with your reasoning.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by bsbray11
It has nothing to do with "200+ experts", which is misleading to begin with they never say that all of those people were in agreement of NIST's conclusions.

Did you actually read the report, or are you nick-picking in hopes of being right? Basically, since the report doesn't tell you 'all the details', there has to be something wrong with the report?


I have read the report. You haven't, have you? I asked you to show me any proof of their hypothesis from the report, and instead you ask me rhetorical questions, "are you nick-picking [sic]...?". Well I don't know, am I? Is not having a shred of proof for their hypothesis nit-picking to you? Because it seems like it should be the whole "meat" of their report if you ask me, but you don't seem very ready to defend them.

Btw, did you read the 19-year NIST fire science veteran's criticisms to Congress about the NIST report? I notice you totally ignored that in your response. Is he nit-picking too in your opinion?

Don't feel bad, though. I've been on these forums asking the same question to scores of people for years and not a single one of them has ever been able to show where NIST proved their hypothesis. People have shown, though, that the very definition of "hypothesis" precludes it from having to be proven. Not even NIST says they proved anything. But still I want to see what you think is so damned convincing from that report, besides the phrase "200+ experts" that seems to have got you so riled up.
edit on 21-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join