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: 25
420
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


ROFL sorry pal any lurkers who see you having any evidence of ANYTHING are complete fools already...but then again that IS who you are targeting, isn't it...WTF wind directions in stairwells do not equate to classic squibs...




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Verm Verm Verm are you still in here trying to debunk what is known to most people all around with your so called perfectionist theory of how a foot print should be in a 110 story steel structure which has never been done...now the closet demolition of this type in a steel building was the JL Hudson building in Detroit at a whopping 439 ft....now knowing that each story is approximately 10ft....pretty much standard calculation for a quick mention of height of a building to keep things simple for one such as yourself...cause i know how you like to keep things simple.



Now that being a proper demolition cause i am using simple terms here for your total lack of understanding falls into it's own footprint.....and wow it has a bit of errors but also take into account the windows were removed and also other buildings in the area were protected for debris fallout....hmmm now why protect the other builings when demolitions are so DAMNED perfect....strange that is.


This is what I keep trying to get him to address.

His whole implied argument seems to be that, since some of WTC7 fell into adjacent streets and onto adjacent buildings, controlled demolition can somehow be automatically ruled out. Forget that WTC7 was taller than any commercial skyscraper ever demolished, and that commercial demolitions do tend to damage neighboring buildings or at the very least carry a significant risk of such damage.

They have shows about CDI on the Discovery Channel every now and then. Watch one and see how many times they mention how everything has to be rigged perfectly or else catastrophe can ensue.

Many crowded urban areas will not even permit explosive demolition of skyscrapers for this very reason, and the buildings have to be expensively taken apart piece-by-piece.
edit on 26-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

ROFL sorry pal any lurkers who see you having any evidence of ANYTHING are complete fools already..


I noticed that you did not attempt to reconcile Komorowski's and Jonas's statements, and BSBray's source (and his belief in it) that the wind blew up the stairwell.

We know why. Cuz we know who the complete fools are....



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

All four walls being ON TOP of the debris pile is the evidence the building landed in it's own footprint. You can't argue this, pictures prove it.



This is a lie.

Videos of the collapse proves it.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are you trying to say if it was demolished, this 47-story building would be all nice and neatly contained within the 4 street intersections surrounding it, and nothing would fall over into the adjacent streets or hit adjacent buildings, because demolitions never do that? Is that what your argument is?


So what exactly the truther argument again? That the collapse was too "neat", IIRC. Now, we get to see the hypocrisy of a truther - ie, ok maybe it's not all that neat, but it still is evidence of cd.


This argument convinces no one but uneducated kids.

Want to convince some real engineers, who have up until now remained silent about 7? Produce something other than incredulity.But that ain't gonna happen cuz it's all you've got.


I will admit a mistake when I make one.


This is a lie. You made a mistake in believing your source when he stated that the stairwells had an upwards blowing wind. Where's the retraction?

Me? I now stand corrected about thermxte being able to cut and/or heat columns enuf to collapse.

See how easy that is?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This is a lie.

Videos of the collapse proves it.


What videos? How can you tell the walls land on top of the pile from any videos?

For the visually challenged...



I only quickly circled the obvious, you can see more of the walls if you look closely.

You are the one who is lying, or confused, or in denial, or whatever it is that motivates you to support lies.
edit on 12/27/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Atione
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The debunkers are starting to act more insane and bizzare

First they claim the official story of kerosene being able to melt firegrad structural steel support columns

Now they are trying to say thermate/thermite cant melt steel?

Is anyone seeing the big problem with this picture?

Perhaps addressing the brainwashing of defending every aspect of the official story would be helpful, because no matter what science is put forward the debunkers always seem to come up with some cliche stupid excuse!


And some people have given you stars ? !

I have genuinely lost count of posts pointing out to truthers that no steel had to melt; but be weakened. It is some truthers who cannot seem to get their heads round that.


While the answer may seem obvious, I have to ask you, did you mean "the steel" got a bit bendy and/or in a particular uniform way? if so that precludes the beams examined by 9/11 commission, and FEMA, which were full of holes and had sulpher residue...they were puzzled yes! full stop. That is an investigation ommission. The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, could not burn a much smaller beam using "conventional" thermite, you can find their incorrect answer in the context of Steven Jones work, but it is a summary, at Wiki, (link below). Testing done obviously in the light of Steven Jones's allegations, that is obfuscation in the very sense of the word, since he talked about something else. Why did the tops of both of towers 1 and 2 heel over, and tower 1 at least, had a massive part of it fall into the street? relevant also to the Wiki quote.

en.wikipedia.org...

this is the quote,

"Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began" That statement is not only Gobbledegook in the latter part it is factually incorrect in the former.
edit on 27-12-2010 by smurfy because: add ommissions.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



This argument convinces no one but uneducated kids.

Want to convince some real engineers, who have up until now remained silent about 7? Produce something other than incredulity.But that ain't gonna happen cuz it's all you've got.



This past month, on TV screens across the New York Metropolitan Area, millions of viewers have been seeing footage of Building 7′s collapse for the first time ever. This is because we took it upon ourselves to produce and appear in a TV ad to draw attention to the fact that more than 1,300 architects and engineers publicly join us in challenging the official explanation that Building 7 came down due to fire. We were fortunate enough that Geraldo Rivera saw our ad and invited our representatives to appear on Geraldo At Large. There they presented the irrefutable evidence that Building 7′s collapse could not have resulted from fire as the government claims. Geraldo Rivera then appeared on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano to discuss our campaign and express his doubts about Building 7. The following week, Judge Napolitano courageously voiced his own opinions on this matter.



Ummm i think there are many Engineers questioning and speaking of bldg 7 me included

I also have to agree with p1 Drummer...Your just the same as verm....spreading disinfo...and calling people liars and as far as wind direction it has nothing to do with it...yes some of the air would have been compressed ...but as soon as there was a break...(an Escape) then the compression and expulsions would cease as the air would take the path of least resistanance...also as the integrity of the structure continued to fail it would become less and less of an issue...also look at the spire falling into the building....hmmmm....seems to be a great area for the air to flow freely.

Not only that a former poster was absolutly rigiht the windows in a sky scraper are mounted with a simple mechanism that locks them into place and they would take relatively little pressure to blow them out...and dont twist my words when i use the word relatively little as it is in the scheme of things....such as easier to blow out than in....now do we see as the bulding collapses a large number of ENTIRE windows blowing out from the SUPPOSED great volumes of compressed air...guess what....NOOOO.

So please since i am a structural Engineer....which people here dont care...and will call me for...cause it appears to be the norm when an EDUCATED person in a field is brave enough to state such...the ignorant will retaliate...but does that matter...no it doesn't....what matters is the Large amount of dis info that gets put out on the OS's behalf and how the sheep followers will just jump on the band wagon and attack logical thnking with rubbish.

Just cuase people use Easy to understand terms for the masses i applaud them...because it is better then trying to baffle em with BS.

Note: Now as far as the Thermite...NAT GEO showed a ridulous little skirting that they placed around a Beam...without any type of compression to direct the reaction....and told people thermite could not have cut the beams...that is like taking the black powder from a bullet (which i did all the time as a kid)..lighting it and expecting a bang...guess what...no bang. Now the uneducated believed such nonsense...so this cole fella redirects the thinking with truth of how tomake it work...you need to contain the reaction and direct it....and Voila' you have it work. so please dont try to foll the EDUCATED with BS...because it does not work.

edit on 033131p://f55Tuesday by plube because: note



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

I also have to agree with p1 Drummer...Your just the same as verm....spreading disinfo...and calling people liars


Besides calling everybody a liar he also likes to reinvent what "truthers" are saying as he goes along. And then tells us we're "complete fools," and I want you guys to watch the next time I call "Joey Canoli"/"ImAPepper"/"ThroatYogurt" (and whatever other accounts he's made) and whoever else is on here "complete fools" how quick my post will be moderated.

The one good thing about all the errant nonsense "Joey" is posting is that it keeps the solid video in the OP near the top of the forum threads list.
edit on 28-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


So rather than producing a technical paper, ae produces a commercial, based on their incredulity.


This is obviously all they're capable of, otherwise, they'd do a wee bit more than this.

Q- are you waiting for them to produce said paper, or as long as they agree with your delusions, you have zero interest in WHY they agree?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This is a lie.

Videos of the collapse proves it.


What videos? How can you tell the walls land on top of the pile from any videos?



By noting that 7 tips to the south during the descent.

Durrrr.

www.nmsr.org...

2nd video on that page shows a period of vertical descent, maybe 10-12 stories, then it tips towards the south as the descent continues. It's tipping at about 15 degrees as it disappears from view behind the other building, but it clearly has momentum in that direction, and so any rational person that believes in the conservation of momentum would agree that it continues tipping even more as it disappears from view. No where is there evidence of the walls being pulled onto the top of the pile. Only the north side ended up on top.

There's zero sign of the walls being pulled in on top of the pile, as you falsely claim happened. You have no way to identify which wall the columns you have outlined come from. You have not attempted it at all, other than to baldly assert that you are right. Video evidence of the walls being pulled onto the top would substattiate your claim, but you cannot provide this. Therefore, you are telling and/or repeating a lie.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I thought this thread died, but instead we have the same old turds repainted to look like new turds. I will apologize for the ignorance in their denial, Bsray. Horses and water.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The one good thing about all the errant nonsense "Joey" is posting is that it keeps the solid video in the OP near the top of the forum threads list.


I would think that you would be dismayed by this.

In your thread, you made the claim that wind was blowing upwards in the stairwells. Then you were given opposing testimony that would cause any rational thinker to re-examine the claim you repeated. Upon doing that, any rational person would come to the conclusion that there indeed exists counter testimony to the conclusions drawn by your source.

Neither you, nor any other truther on this forum has shown any interest at all in doing that re-examination. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that truthers are not interested in any testimony that counters their delusional beliefs regarding 9/11.

This is a classic symptom of a truther. Avoid that which refutes your beliefs. It is seen from every truther on this forum.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Could you please quote said "counter testimony" or at least provide a link to this? It may be hard for those that lurk to clearly make that part out amongst the chaotic nonsense which comes out of the truster movement. When trusters reply to posts, they are erratic and unorganized and tend to dodge the information or questions in each post.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
By noting that 7 tips to the south during the descent.

Durrrr.


Dude you are really not paying attention.

What happened DURING the collapse doesn't change the FACT that it landed in its own footprint, evidenced by all four outer wall being ON TOP of the debris pile.

If it had leaned to one side, as I already explained and you obviously ignored, then there would be ONE wall on top of the debris pile, ONE wall under the debris pile, and TWO outside of the debris pile. To get ALL four walls ON TOP of the debris pile takes controlled implosion demolition, it's the ONLY physical way that can happen.

Saying it leaned one way or another is not proof that it didn't land in its own footprint, as the final outcome shows it obviously did. In fact the collapse did lean one way, but only after the majority of the building had already collapse straight down, this is also typical as what you are seeing is the outer wall folding inwards towards the center of the building. You are just interpenetrating the lean wrong, the final outcome of the collapse doesn't fit your hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK
What videos? How can you tell the walls land on top of the pile from any videos?


By noting that 7 tips to the south during the descent.

Durrrr.


So he thinks he can debunk what is plainly and irrefutably shown in a post-collapse photograph, with a video that only shows the building slightly leaning. And no comment on your photo at all, did you notice Anok?


I think he knows how stupid what he's posting is, and is just trying to get a rise out of us, like your classic internet forum troll.

Then he gets on his other accounts, that we all must by now realize he has, and stars his own posts.

"Durrrrrrrr"



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
I thought this thread died, but instead we have the same old turds repainted to look like new turds. I will apologize for the ignorance in their denial, Bsray. Horses and water.


I guess the baiting, insults and errant nonsense are garnering enough traffic to the thread that ATS is content with letting "Joey" make a fool of himself. Either that or the mods are so spiteful that they enjoy watching us be perpetually baited and insulted by a troll, which is what I really think.


A firefighter testifies that he was nearly lifted off of his feet, and his helmet nearly sucked off of his head, by a torrent of wind. And "Joey" has been trying to make poop stick to the wall for 2 pages, by trying to say "lift" in the firefighter's testimony means the same thing as to be blown downwards. And everyone knows for something to be lifted it has to be lifted forever and never ever come back down to the ground, so therefore being lifted is impossible and the firefighter was clearly being lifted down the stairs.


And then there was the response to ANOK, which made even less sense, if that's even possible. Seriously, this stuff does not even warrant a response at all. If this is all ATS "debunkers" have to work with anymore then really we are just beating a dead horse here. You could try to convince a schizophrenic that he isn't actually Elvis but you would just be wasting your time. Remember this is the same guy who drove way out of his way to harass Richard Gage in public, takes the obsessive initiative to learn the first names and personal information of people he argues with on the internet, and repeatedly makes new accounts every time he's banned for frothing too far at the mouth with the endless barrage of condescension and insults. Not to mention he never leaves the 9/11 forum and what you are seeing here is exactly what he always "contributes" to threads. Do you really think it's productive to be wasting time on him here at all?
edit on 28-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Could you please quote said "counter testimony" or at least provide a link to this? It may be hard for those that lurk to clearly make that part out amongst the chaotic nonsense which comes out of the truster movement. When trusters reply to posts, they are erratic and unorganized and tend to dodge the information or questions in each post.

More than that, Joey is asking for something he doesn't actually give himself. I do agree that WTC7 also tilted as it fell, just as BOTH the twin towers did. I think that is important, from the point of view that both the twin towers portions that tilted were near and above the area of damage and tilted almost immediately and were in total disintegration, a huge amount of mass just fell away, yet they continued to fall, also in total disintegration. WTC7 was different, it fell considerably and then tilted. The north wall as mostly seen in the collapse exhibited no pivital device, it just kept falling straight down and then bent over in compliance when it was nearly done. I do think that the main point of failure in the twin towers was at the corners, and at a critical point in some of those corners, I do not think that the NIST's cartoons are sufficient, since they had to make "adjustments" to fit their already hypothesis, they had secondhand drawings of the towers, what can you build into that to make the story right? doesn't matter, they used anecdotal in paper evidence to build on. Try that in court.
edit on 28-12-2010 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

Most of the way things were handled would not hold up in court. I guess if it was good enough for the goose, then it is not always good enough for the gander.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
this is absolutly great, i knew from the first time i see them go down it was ABNORMAL it was done and i cant say professionaly but this was a well planed inside attact, sorry about spelling, not too good lol



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join