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: 33
420
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Maybe you miss this:


[color=gold]Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble



Steel did not need to melt in order for collapse to occur. The collapse of such a massive, tall object, however, would release a great deal of gravitational potential energy. Clearly a great deal of heat would be generated by the collapse alone, even disregarding any potential explosives or airplane fuel or whatever.
edit on 3-1-2011 by wirehead because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yawn. I want answers, but provide none. Finally you got something right. You're not going to cry about it too are you?

Again you decline to comment on what demolition theory you are basing your claim of 'all those explosions don't sound like a demolition.'


Cry about it? Absolutely not. You behaved as I expected.
As you are inexperienced in technical matters, I will leave an explanation my comments on demolition as an exercise for you.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well what I find I'm asking myself instead is, what degree of uncertainty would be left if a more thorough and powerful investigation were undertaken?


And what is your answer to that? I don't think any new evidence will become available, so what could come out of it?


I have no theory for either case, and the observation of the distribution of mass does not require one. In both situations I think you are pretty screwed. Earlier you suggested a multi-ton column section could travel as far as 30 meters, almost 100 feet laterally, after hitting the pile below it, but I seriously doubt it could even travel that far and of course you are just speculating anyway.


I don't follow you. Why does the distribution of mass not require an explanation, and why am I pretty screwed in both situations? I suppose your doubt about my speculation is also just speculation, so this isn't useful. Maybe this would be a good topic to do some research in for the truth movement?



The best papers you could offer me for your collapse theories (and I at least would agree that Bazant had the best attempt of anyone) leave you grasping for further theories to explain observable facts that contradict Bazant's model and render it useless. That should put us in the same boat, of wanting a much better look into what happened here. Imo you are looking at no more than 20% of the total building mass in either footprint tops. And that's also a very conservative estimate in my opinion because it's equivalent to 1/5 of the entire tower in either footprint, and I really doubt it's even that much.


Bazant's is the best model we currently have. Personally I have less problems with their assumptions, as they don't seem that far fetched, and there don't seem to be better assumptions to choose from. I am ok with more research, but let there at least be an hypothesis first.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
it seems to me that it was more cost affective to bring those buildings down than it was to keep supporting all the negatives that the buildings possessed. it was the beginning of the end of the great prostitute.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 



Steel did not need to melt in order for collapse to occur. The collapse of such a massive, tall object, however, would release a great deal of gravitational potential energy. Clearly a great deal of heat would be generated by the collapse alone, even disregarding any potential explosives or airplane fuel or whatever.
edit on 3-1-2011 by wirehead because: (no reason given)


And this is based on what science?

Please provide an example, anything to support this nonsense? Something that has some science.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Yes and it all happened just under one hour?

Answer this question pteridine, what created the “extreme temperatures” to melt the steel?
We know airplane fuel does not burn at these extreme temperatures much less all the office materials and carpeting. None of the contents in the WTC could reach the melting point temperatures to melt or bend steel. Remember you are claiming that airplane jet fuel and office fires are responsible for your pancake collapse at free fall; and it all happened in less than an hour after the plane impact the WTC.

I would like to see the science that supports this impossibility?
You do not support demolition or explosions so what melted the steel less than an hour?

Since you have “rejected” every answer by the leading experts, including science, why don’t you explain how all three WTC came down at free fall?

There is no evidence that the planes hit any of the core columns either. So if the outer floor joist were damaged, then we would have witness the outer wall and floor joist breaking outward, however the core columns would have never fell. In fact some of the floors would have falling, but the trusses connected to the core columns would have stayed connected, while the outer wall would have been hanging downward.


I didn’t think you answer my questions. Perhaps the facts don’t stand up to the OS. You can’t even tell us what caused this extreme heat that soften the WTC steel in less than an hour?

This is the problem with many of you debunkers you dream up all this nonsense and you cannot even back any of it up with any real science, just like the OS. Have you persuaded anyone over to your side recently? Has any Truther recently stopped supporting Jones thermite journal and demolition, to support your unproven conspiracy theory? I don’t think so.

Until you can answer with proven science to what created such extreme heat in one hour to support your conspiracy theory, you do not have a leg to stand on.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I need to call it quits for the evening. I'll try to check back in tomorrow.

Thanks for being a good sport.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As you are inexperienced in technical matters, I will leave an explanation my comments on demolition as an exercise for you.


Right, just tell me I'm "inexperienced in technical matters" and give me grammatically garbled nonsense and leave it at that.

Still waiting to hear what demolition theory you are basing your claim on, that you claim none of the many explosions reported are consistent with.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I need to call it quits for the evening. I'll try to check back in tomorrow.

Thanks for being a good sport.


Thank you too. People have so much emotion tied up in this stuff that I'm surprised when we leave off on good terms. It may not even last between us, but I don't take anything anyone says to me on here personally. I take the issues seriously, but not personally.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by impressme
Maybe you miss this:


[color=gold]Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble



Steel did not need to melt in order for collapse to occur. The collapse of such a massive, tall object, however, would release a great deal of gravitational potential energy. Clearly a great deal of heat would be generated by the collapse alone, even disregarding any potential explosives or airplane fuel or whatever.
edit on 3-1-2011 by wirehead because: (no reason given)


Can I ask a simple question .... are you saying it's possible to create molten steel by dropping it from a height ?

Are you saying that a building like this falling down would cause steel to melt and flow in a molten state ?

I just can't grasp what your saying. Can you clear it up for me please ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead
Gravitational attraction does not exert a constant force, it results in a constant acceleration. The force scales with mass so that a heavy object falls just as fast as a light object. This is the whole point of Galileo's falling-balls experiment.


Soooo...did 9/11 happen on the moon? Because that's the closest place I can think of where a heavy object would fall just as fast as a light object.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
i am putting together a large post right now...but while i was doing some researching i came across this photo...taken on the Day of 911...Now so have been going on about the angular cuts being done by the clean up crew....which i am sure sone were...but see the beam protruding upwards...this is before any cleanup was even being done on site...strange that would you not think....staring right in the face...an angular cut....also notice the bottom end of the Perimeter wall on the left...the bottom of each of those would have had four bolts attaching it to next section of a box column...and suprise...no deformation from being torn apart as one would expect...but i am sure that is perfectly normal not to expect any stress tearing or deformation when ripping bolted steal apart



but i will be back with futher details but these things do take time...another thing i notice...is we so called truthers take the time to present things only to be called names...ridiculed...professions to be belittled yet we still spend the time to present items to the otherside of the argument....I am starting to think we are nuts.
edit on 073131p://f38Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073131p://f42Tuesday by plube because: my gramma was bad to me



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   


Not sure which beam your talking about, but wtf has happened to the one I have pointed to ?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Check any youtube video showing CD of a building. Look carefully. Compare that with the videos of the WTC. See if you notice any differences and get back to me.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It seems to be a matter of perspective. If you look at it as a rectangular beam there is no longer a angular cut. As for the column heads not being damage, I don't really see why they should be. It seems to me the bolds are magnitudes weaker and will break long before the columns deform.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
And this is based on what science?

Please provide an example, anything to support this nonsense? Something that has some science.


Tensile strength is temperature-dependent and decreases with temperature.
en.wikipedia.org...(engineering)#Factors_influencing_yield_stress



Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Soooo...did 9/11 happen on the moon? Because that's the closest place I can think of where a heavy object would fall just as fast as a light object.


This is physics 101. In fact, it's pre-newtonian. If you don't believe me, get a golf ball and a brick and drop them off your roof. Heavy objects do not fall faster. You might as well argue that the sky is orange.

edit on 4-1-2011 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Check any youtube video showing CD of a building. Look carefully. Compare that with the videos of the WTC. See if you notice any differences and get back to me.


Yes, and there are differences between every single other demolition. That's what I'm saying. They're all different, and all require different configurations specific to the structure and other circumstances that have to be taken into account.

So be more specific here "pteridine," don't just send me on a wild goose chase on YouTube. I thought it was "truthers" who relied on YouTube videos for all their evidence?


You say all the explosions at the WTC were inconsistent with demolition, well which specific configuration of demolition are you assuming then? I take it you're just flapping your fingers and just saying what feels right to you.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


it would appear i have to point everything out like i am talking to absolute children....I am sorry but to keep doing this takes time and cuts into the work i am doing but I am trying to be helpful but it would also help if people would use logic themsselves...the bolts used are graded to be used in the structures that was built...the bolts that would be used in the towers would have been tested to a very high shear strength....The fact being because the the building being built so high with a very broad frontage would need to handled the hurricane type wind forces acting upon them...and also lets not forget they were built to sustain an impact of a 707 the largest passenger airliner at the time....

now becuase i am feeling generous with my time...i will post tihis while i am working on the building 7 fiasco.



now you see in the foreground how it is deformed and twisted...also shall we look along the beam it is bent where three bolts are...now that would be expected.



now see the direction of the shear in that bolt then see the hole above...DEFORMED in the direction of the shear.

also look at the top corner of the box column below...you can see the impression in the steel....now that is also what one would expect.

now go back because i myself am feeling a bit lazy and becuse you are an inteligent person...look at the last photo...and you will see no defrormed steel.

you see i found a photo and question what i a seeing ...you ask a question and give a reply and i went and found an example of what i wasn't observing in the photo..now that photo was on the day of 9/11....no one had gone in and unbolted those sections...and they would not anyways they would use a cutting torch....it is not NORMAL and is not what one would EXPECT.
When the columns separate where they are bolted there would be some kind of stress related and some deforming of the steel plates. We are talking tons of material acting on those bolts in my opinion it just shows yet another anomally.

NOTE: this just leads me further to start to believe that Jon Cole may be going down the right path and the Bolt heads were attacked. You see this is what looking at EVIDENCE does...it leads you down roads that should have been looked at in the first place....Unless the criminals are the same ones doing the investigation.

edit on 023131p://f30Tuesday by plube because: note

edit on 033131p://f38Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


So it didn't look like how you expected it would look. Now what?

Maybe you should take a brake from the forum, you sound a bit incoherent and frustrated.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Hey PLB, you still thinking about how 50-95% of the mass of either tower could have actually landed in its respective footprint and then spread out over all that area after the fact?



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join