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: 19
420
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Wind is caused by differences in air pressure. It's caused by the air from a high-pressure area rushing to fill in a lower-pressure area.


Yep.

Nothing you say discredits what I said. I said, "No great accumulation of air pressure is necessary....."


If you are talking about even a sharp breeze, that might not take much of an air pressure difference, but look at pictures of what you're trying to explain again.



These are significant events, not just a little wind blowing.

If you are talking about rocketing pieces of physical debris as well as dust out many feet into the air laterally, you are going to have to try a little harder than "no great accumulation," because it would take a relatively large freaking gust of wind to blow all that crap out about a hundred feet into the air sideways.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that hurricanes and tornadoes also don't require much of an air pressure accumulation and that it just takes a little breeze to blow furniture around. Stop trolling already, Cameron, we all already realize how strong your faith is. One account was enough for you. Your whole "argument" has been reduced to unquantifiable opinionated words that don't stand up to common sense judgments. Ie, blowing all that crap out so far and so fast takes more than just a little breeze.
edit on 22-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your opinion is noted, but it doesn't correlate very much with my sense of reality. It seems highly likely to me that the majority of the debris is not flying sideways, as there is no force that could be responsible for that. So most of the debris is remains in the path above the building, compressed right in the space between the top section and the uncollapsed floors. The "debris" you see on lower floors can well be just office materials and smoke being blown out of the window. It is not clear enough for me to identify what it consists of exactly.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
One of the biggest arguments against controlled demo seemed to always be the amount of explosives needed was too great according to debunkers. So how much thermate/nanthermite would actually be needed now to cut just the bolts on the columns? How much conventional or perhaps thermobaric(as theorized by LabTop) explosives would then be needed to displace a few floors of columns to initiate a collapse of the severed columns?
Since there wasn't a significant wind that day, all of the columns may have been able to be severed(although probably only halft needed to be) and still leave the towers standing until strong enough sidways force displaced enough columns to initiate a collapse.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


The better question is, now that nanothermite was found, if it wasnt to bring down the towers, what was it doing there?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Your opinion is noted, but it doesn't correlate very much with my sense of reality. It seems highly likely to me that the majority of the debris is not flying sideways, as there is no force that could be responsible for that.


The idea that most of the mass went straight down, and not off the sides, has also already been debunked. I will just show you a few images that will explain this to you clearly enough, if you let them.

The base of one of the towers:



Where is all the building materials in a big stack, if it all went straight down?







FEMA explains:





The debris did not just fall down.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I suppose next you're going to tell me that hurricanes and tornadoes also don't require much of an air pressure accumulation and that it just takes a little breeze to blow furniture around.



Nope.

I'm gonna tell you that it doesn't take a big psi differential, nor a perfect piston like seal when the object doing the pushing is the size of a football field and doing 70 mph. And that your argument is debunked to any rational person as pure incredulity that it can happen.

Also, your links to show evidence about there being upward flow of air in staircase B is pure crap. Matt Komorowski was in the that staircase, and he says the air also lifted him off his feet, and that it blew him down the stairs. Same with Piccioto. And Kross (not Croft) never once mentions an upward blast of air - in his audio interview, he describes that he was almost lifted off his feet (like Komorowski and Piccioto actually were but were blown DOWN) and then describes debris hitting him, while making motions of stuff coming down from above, THEN describes the wind stopping. David Lim, (not Dave Lim) describes Komorowski flying past him DOWN the staircase. Billy Butler flew DOWN the staircase. Josephine Harris flew DOWN the staircase with Lim and Butler, who were the 2 guys helping her.Jay Jonas (not Jones) is also clear that the wind was blowing down the stairwell.

It's unclear who Jim McLean is, I find zero record of this name so it's probably another error in your source's info.

So in conclusion, you have been debunked that it takes a perfect piston to force a large volume of air and debris out the windows.

And you have been exposed as repeating lies about there being an upward airflow in staircase B.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Those puffs occour well below the point where the collapse has progressed as well, therefore the pancake effect cant be the reason or the only reason, an effect only seen in controlled demolitions this far. But if you look up videos where that medhod is used, the collapse is slower than freefall speed as one floor crashes on the other and not just by a small fraction slower.

You dont see one floor crashing into the other at all if you look up any of the videos of the WTC collapse. Puffs of smoke come out, yes, but you do not see the floor crashing down, just turning into dust.

Yet more and more halftruths used to support the official conspiracy theory.

This is the french demolition technique.

www.youtube.com...

While you dont have to take out the middle floor you cant bring the building down by taking out the top floor first either.
There are no puffs of smoke other than those produced by the explosion which are then dispersed by the collapse and dust when the whole thing hits the ground, which makes sense, because the structure cant act as both, the canalizing struchture through which air is forced out AND as source for any dust.Lastly none of the buildings in the clip appeared to have had a massive steele core column.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What happened to the "collapsed-in-its-own-footprint-and-was-therefore-CD" claims? Is that only for #7.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And where exactly would you expect the concentration of the debris to be the highest? In the footprint of the building or on the sides?

Anyway, I doubt if the amount of debris compressed between the top section and the collapsing floors is that relevant anyhow. the air just can not flow up, as there is dense debris and a top section. It can only go to the sides and down the shafts. If you don't agree, so be it.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Who said nano-thermite was found? Jones found red paint, based on his analyses. Maybe it is the same red paint that was used to cover the steel structure of the building over the gray oxide coat on the structural steel.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes its only for 7. The collapse of the WTC towers is different if we can trust our own eyes and the videos. It looks more like it was stuffed full of explosives like a turkey and blown to smitherness. Thats why you see all those huge puffs as the "collapse" progresses, while WTC7 indeed just collapses as the bearing trusses are taken out, or simultanously fail because they have been weakened by fires which were not visible from the outside, depending on which version you want to go with.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Who said nano-thermite was found? Jones found red paint, based on his analyses. Maybe it is the same red paint that was used to cover the steel structure of the building over the gray oxide coat on the structural steel.


He clearly says he found Nanothermite. If there is fault with the paper, I am sure one or more of his peers with an education in a related field will debunk the paper as a whole or its faults. At this point I am going to take his word over that of conspiracyguy on the ATS board.

Seriously though, who do you expect me to believe? An team of PHDs with years of experience who composed the paper over the course of 18 months or you, because you have a pretty avatar?

So your reaction to "if it wasnt a demolition what was nanothermite doing there" basically is "lalalala I cant heeaaar yoouuu lalalala"
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 

The problem with your logic is that nanothermite wasn't found. Jones failed to prove his predetermined conclusion that red paint chips were in fact some sort of demolition material. Cole showed that thermate does what it is designed to do; cut steel. He could have shown that hacksaws cut steel. There is just as much evidence for hacksaws as there is for thermate. It was a fun video to watch.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I'm gonna tell you that it doesn't take a big psi differential, nor a perfect piston like seal when the object doing the pushing is the size of a football field and doing 70 mph.


It doesn't matter how big or fast it's going when it's nothing but concrete dust and shattered steel. You would have to be blind to think that that mess was anything even remotely air-tight when you watch the collapse. I don't know how you are able to convince yourself in your own head that what you are seeing is pushing ANYTHING down, let alone gases, when most of even the solid debris is being blown out the sides.


Also, your links to show evidence about there being upward flow of air in staircase B is pure crap. Matt Komorowski was in the that staircase, and he says the air also lifted him off his feet, and that it blew him down the stairs.


How does a rush of air going downward lift you off your feet "CameronFox"/"ThroatYogurt"/"Joey Canoli"? Being blown down steps is different than being lifted up and then falling down stairs. Your excuses are pure crap.


So in conclusion, you have been debunked that it takes a perfect piston to force a large volume of air and debris out the windows.


I never said it would take either a "perfect piston" or a large volume of air, but you have nothing to suggest anything even remotely resembling either at the WTC. Most of the steel and all the other debris flying outwards and not going straight down = MOST OF THE AIR IS ESCAPING THAT WAY TOO. It seriously does not take a genius to figure that out. All you are doing is trolling, and I'll say it again, you only deserved to have one account, as in there was a good reason the other two were banned. You're probably starring your own posts with your other multiple accounts too.

Talk about a liar.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What happened to the "collapsed-in-its-own-footprint-and-was-therefore-CD" claims? Is that only for #7.


What happened to putting statements in full context?

I guess that would be way too much to think about simultaneously.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
And where exactly would you expect the concentration of the debris to be the highest? In the footprint of the building or on the sides?


If the mass was predominantly going straight down, then where do YOU think the greatest amount of debris should have been when it was over? There's a pretty damned obvious answer to that is there not?

And if the majority of the mass of either tower was being blown outwards in all directions as they were coming down, aside from there obviously being some force to do this despite your piously faithfully assumption to the contrary, then I guess somehow you must think it would be insane to think the majority of the air was also escaping very easily in these same directions. Massive pieces of steel can fly out of there no problem, but air? Ohhh nooo waayy that air was trapped and forced down the whole way! Yeaaahhh riiiight. Where a massive chunk of steel can fly outwards through the air outside, you can bet your ass there is going to be lots of air following it to fill its place the whole way, and that everything immediately below it was also being pulverized to nothing instantly because it was all sailing out in the same way the very next instant.


the air just can not flow up, as there is dense debris and a top section.


This is coming from the same person who just said most of the mass couldn't have been going out sideways, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. You are forgetting a massive and ever-expanding hole between the falling top part of the buildings and the intact floors below. A massive, massive hole where solid chunks of debris were sailing out in all directions. If air can't flow that way then how in the HELL is all of that debris getting out? Can you tell me that, please?????
edit on 22-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


there's no way in hell those buildings could have come down in such a way without the use of explosives. you can clearly see that the basement of the buildings were blown out by the size of the inner pile of debris. they ran a shot sequence from the basement all the way to the top of the building in just a few milliseconds shattering all the concrete in the center of the buildings. might have even been a sonic boom device that were fired up the shafts to bring the buildings down. the thermite was most likely on the planes or brought up by the fire fighters or both.


the bottom line is the bottom floors would have remained intact no matter what or how much weight was pushing down on them if no explosive was used. not including the fact that as the building was coming apart the weight of the building was also decreasing by volume
edit on 22-12-2010 by aliengenes because: add



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
the bottom line is the bottom floors would have remained intact no matter what or how much weight was pushing down on them if no explosive was used.


Exactly. It's ironic that OS trusters are always forced to suggest some variation of the long-debunked "pancake theory" when pressed, yet the very areas where all of this mass should have eventually accumulated (the footprints at the base of the towers) were the only places there was structure left intact!


The towers didn't "collapse" at all, they literally exploded piece-by-piece in all directions, making a huge radius of debris as FEMA illustrated in the graphic above. And there at the very bottom... the core and perimeter columns still stood, intact, and protruding from what little rubble actually did land there. Ironic, and sad.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


there would have been a much larger pile in the center including floors, but there wasn't, so some form of high explosive or device was used. there can be only one explanation and the governments lying through their teeth



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Also, your links to show evidence about there being upward flow of air in staircase B is pure crap. Matt Komorowski was in the that staircase, and he says the air also lifted him off his feet, and that it blew him down the stairs.


How does a rush of air going downward lift you off your feet? Being blown down steps is different than being lifted up and then falling down stairs. Your excuses are pure crap.



nymag.com...

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

Lim landed near Harris. “If Josephine doesn’t slow me down, I’m dead,” he’d later say. “I figured this out.” That captain who’d urged Lim to go ahead didn’t make it. “Josephine Harris saved my life,” he says definitively. Harris landed on her side, clinging to the boot of Billy Butler.


You have been proven to accept any woo that you read as long as it supports your cd delsuions.

I feel ashamed for you brian. This info has been freely available to anyone that cares to find it.

You do not care to find any truth. This is proven.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join