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: 34
420
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
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.


I sent you to youtube because I thought that was the source of all your information. If you'd like to claim a few explosions dropped the towers, you will have to come up with a theory of where the explosives were placed and what they targeted. Of course, if only a few key structures were destroyed, then the collapse was not "too fast" and didn't really need anything other than initiation. Then you will need to show that the initiation couldn't have been from fire weakening steel and that some explosive was needed. Certainly you have evidence of your theory. If you don't, then you'll just have to continue asking pointless questions and pretending to be an intellectual. I do appreciate your use of smiley faces, it makes you seem so....mature.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Did you not read what i said...the first photo did not look like i had expected it should look if pieces were torn apart...so i went and got photos of how it should look so it confirmed what i had said to you....wow...i have decided you do not have one ounce of logical thought in your head....do you just say these things to get a rise out of people....in the first photo...THE ONE YOU QUESTIONED....there is no deformation....and there should be....
In all of the pieces where there is separation from the BOLTS there should be....IT should be consistant through out the damge and it IS NOT.
You say you have a masters....hmmmmm....i usually do not coment on how silly some of the comments are....but you my friend have lost it...so please go somewhere else and try to twist words ok...I will no longer respond to you....thank for your time.


edit on 033131p://f35Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033131p://f41Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


I sent you to youtube because I thought that was the source of all your information.


No, it's apparently the source of all your information because this is the first time I've seen you even come remotely close to posting a source in ages, and what do you know, it's a vague "go search on YouTube."

And even that's based on fallacious reasoning because all it would prove is that there are many different ways to configure for demolitions, which we already knew. So what specific configuration are you assuming when you say the explosions heard at the WTC don't match with demolition?


If you'd like to claim a few explosions dropped the towers,


Aww, now let's not divert from who is really making the claims. Are we not arguing about the fact that you said all the documented and factual explosions that occurred at the WTC couldn't have been part of any demolition?


Take a close look at what you are doing "pteridine" because this is typical of all your posts. You weasel from one fallacy to the next, until your next opportunity for an epic rant. You made a claim and you are now in the process of weaseling away from it. The epic rant will come next I guess.
edit on 4-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Not really. To me it makes sense that most of the debris was in the foot print during collapse. Part of fell it into the basement section, part of it fell to the sides after impact.

Have you already figured out what mechanism could be responsible for ejecting most of the debris to the sides during the collapse?
edit on 4-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


So your position is that all damage should be exactly similar? You are so vague I can't really figure out your point to be honest. And wasn't it you who was complaining you were being ridiculed? Are you taking revenge or something?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   


These are a comparison between two analysis of the fire in building 7 we see what the AE movement analysis is and we see what NIST analysis says now at approx 2pm the fire is in the south east section of the building…yet that is not what the imagery is showing….then at 3pm the fires heat is in the north side of the building but NIST is still showing the southeast section of the building…..then again at 4pm we have a hot spot sitting in the north side off to the west….but the nist image shows the fire being completely located around the north east side of the building…and none of it seems to coincide with what is happening in the photos.



After looking at the fires..and the way NIST conveniently shows the intensity of the fire to focus around Column 79…which happens to be the Column running up to the penthouse which disappears first…yet in the photos the fires were not all concentrated around that particular area the fires actually show an intensity around 79 for less than an hour in the hot spot.





Ok now we have two simulations right from the NIST report on WTC 7 showing how building 7 should be twisting and buckling….Now because all things being connected and if the buckling were confined between floors and it being compressed or say sandwiched the that would be localized to that floor…but they are showing that this buckling was spanning several floors at least ten floors…which means the exterior walls would be showing some sort of deformation would it not.



Now in this photo where the penthouse has ALREADY collapsed into the main body of the building do we see any real deformation occurring …no what we actually see is a few plates of glass gone and we see sky through the upper left side of the structure the roof of the building has already began to plummet below the actual roofline.

The NIST report also sates the the collapse was progressing from columns 79 80 81 east heading west so we would expect the collapse to follow that progression visibly from the outside of the structure…do we see this occurring….lets watch.




Yes we see in the Vid the building behaving in EXACTLY the way the NST report says it should...completely and absolutely a progreassive collapse from East to West with extremely visible buckling and twisting affecting the exterior of the struture.(if you cannot see the sarcasm in the statement then no point in talking).
So the more and more the NIST report falls to pieces....the more and more people like Jon Cole will get recognized for their hard work....And it is hard work when you run up against people whom only see things one way and cannot access what normal and not normal And then the abnormal is pointed out to them they just try to defer to another issue.


edit on 043131p://f48Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 



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


And this proves what?


Dose this “prove” what cause the extreme heat in the WTC that weaken the steel and core columns? I don’t think so. Nice try.

Back to square one again.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Not really. To me it makes sense that most of the debris was in the foot print during collapse. Part of fell into the basement section, part of it fell to the sides.


WTC1's core section was still intact at ground level, and so were its bottom-most perimeter column sections. How did all the debris pack down into the basements when the ground-level structure was still intact?

"Part of it fell to the sides" is a severe understatement.


Did you even look at these pictures?





Did you identify the bottom-level columns in the above photograph, with the bottom-level columns in the below photographs?:








Now you are also telling me that at least 50%, and at most 95% of the buildings' masses actually landed in those footprints you see above, but then scattered after collapse?

And you don't even know how this happened, you're just assuming it happened so Bazant's paper will work out for you, since otherwise you must now realize that it doesn't work at all.



What do they say about opinions determining the facts? When the data doesn't suit your theory, you just start making stuff up to make it to fit.



Have you already figured out what mechanism that could eject most of the debris during the collapse?


I don't need a mechanism to prove that this was in fact the case, and I don't plan on being the one to do the better investigation for you, either.




You see all that stuff flying outside the building there?

You've seen FEMA's diagram?




Let's see, the heavy debris being ejected an entire tower's width away from the building, and it was ejected pretty symmetrically from all sides. It shouldn't take a structural engineer to figure that the total area of debris ejection in the photo above alone is several times the same area of the floors that are collapsing.





Like I said, I don't need to prove that an enormous amount of debris was in fact being ejected in all directions when anybody with 2 eyeballs attached to their brain can already see it in the photos. You don't know what's causing it? Great, me either, but welcome to reality. Now maybe you understand why I'm disgusted with the "investigations" that have been done into this so far. You had to have somebody from the public try to explain the global collapses and even he can't take this fact into account without screwing up his whole explanation.


You take this along with the photos of Ground Zero afterward, and any rational person can see where all the building mass went. It was definitely nothing even remotely similar to a "pancake collapse."
edit on 4-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You know my points PLB....and i will not play into your game of trying to play peoples words against them it is childish and yes of course damage should be relatively consistant as all the forces on the structure due to progressive collapse,just as if your doing a car accident investigation the resulting damage should be consistant with what occured in the accident...and when there are inconsistency's then that means there were external factors.
Now the buidlings apparently suffered progressive so there all elements should of course be consistant with that...now i answer you purely out of politness...but last time...you just try to manipulate words rather than look at the whole pespective...Simple as if there is deformation in the area of the bolts during separation then there should be deformation fairly consistantly throughout and if you do not unstand that simple statement...this is the end of any further discussion with you as you are just being antagonistic....and when you said i need a brake...the word was break.....see how petty one could be if they truely wanted to be.
But you being an intelligent person...would see past those things would you not.
because i did until you got simple...and tried to twist words....so if you would like to keep up an intelligent conversation great...if not...simple.
edit on 043131p://f39Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How do you determine that more than 50% of the debris was ejected to the sides? And can you share your methodology to determine this?

Personally I see a huge cloud of debris in your pictures, which obscures most of what is going on. I can't determine what percentage of mass was ejected and what percentage was inside the footprint. Although I would suspect that mostly the perimeter columns would be ejected, and the floors and core columns would remain in the footprint, as I don't see an obvious mechanism for those to be ejected. A part of the mass also was turned to dust when it hit the ground.

Another point, the model by Bazant is an idealized model. It assumes that the load is perfectly distributed over supporting columns as the mass falls. In reality this is absolutely not the case. The load will be unevenly distributed, and the falling mass will hit floors which will put all kind of stress on the columns they were not designed to handle. The model provided by Bazant was basically meant to provide proof of the validity of the gravity driven progressive collapse theory, not to accurately represent the collapse. What that basically means is that even if the mass in the footprint was lower than 50% it does not invalidate the gravity driven progressive collapse theory. It just invalidates Bazant model as valid proof of it. Nevertheless it would still be strong evidence that the theory is a very plausible explanation for the collapse.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hello BS that is precisely an area i am working on and here is a photo that will help....it shows that with aprox 130m of collapse the debris is already spreading horizontally aat least 130m...and some of the debris is steel beams as i have closeups of it to....



I find it hard to understand why it is so easy to believe the OS when the Evidence does not back up that debris within 130m should send tons out 130m horizontally just due to gravity....It is beyond my comprehension.

Now these measurements are fairly close as were are dealing with knowns...the height of the towers known...the height of WFC3 known....Width of towers known.

What it shows progressive collapse would never have continued as the mass was Expelled out to the sides of the building....Bazant Zho had to Reintroduce there paper....and Even the New paper is being seriouly torn to shreds under peer review.
edit on 053131p://f08Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I think one thing you can say about the collapse of the WTC is that it wasn't "controlled". It was one big chaos. Some fell from high altitude, some from lower altitude, some were hit by other columns, other were not, some come from the lower section, other from the top section, some where ejected tens of meters, other were not. I can think of dozens of scenarios how the columns could have been damaged differently.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead
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)


Huh. How crazy that I never realized this. I should take Physics 101.

So what happens if I go a step further, and take, say, a bowling ball and a beach ball, and drop them from the top of the Sears Tower? Are they both going to hit the ground at the same time?

I realize this conversation is essentially pointless, but I need to learn how this works and you seem to know your stuff.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How do you determine that more than 50% of the debris was ejected to the sides? And can you share your methodology to determine this?


Are you still seriously asking this after BS showed you?

Do you think all the debris moved outside the footprint after the collapse?

There are no floors even in the debris. Can you show me the massive steel floor pans?

If you were correct you would see something similar this...



Intact floors lying on top of each other, not pulverized floors spread in a 360d circle around the building.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
I find it hard to understand why it is so easy to believe the OS when the Evidence does not back up that debris within 130m should send tons out 130m horizontally just due to gravity....It is beyond my comprehension.


Thats funny because I find it hard to believe that it could be anything but gravity. Where else could such a huge force come from that eject very heavy steel beams over 100 meters?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I don't think dropping floors from 400 meter down will look like that. But thats just me.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


I think one thing you can say about the collapse of the WTC is that it wasn't "controlled". It was one big chaos. Some fell from high altitude, some from lower altitude, some were hit by other columns, other were not, some come from the lower section, other from the top section, some where ejected tens of meters, other were not. I can think of dozens of scenarios how the columns could have been damaged differently.


If the collapses were really just chaotic then why was there no resistance at all from undamaged structure.

Even the slightest resistance would cause the collapse to be asymmetrical, yet the collapses were all symmetrical as you have been shown. This indicates there was no resistance as it was removed ahead of the collapse wave.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why would resistance make the collapse asymmetrical? I think the evidence for resistance is compelling. Pulverized concrete, ejecting debris.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


I don't think dropping floors from 400 meter down will look like that. But thats just me.


Then you must admit that the towers didn't land in their footprints. Floors didn't pancake.

Because if they did the last few floors would still be there piled up in the footprint, otherwise you have to explain what pulverized the last few floors that supposedly just pulverized the floors bellow them.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


we are talking about the separation of two wall panels each one weighing tons...being separated where the bolts are....not being undone....if you can show me...one....just one....where you seperate Three box columns of that size by Snapping...shearing...ripping...tugging ...on the bolts...and not have any deformation in any of the bolts holes....show...me...until that time eithie put up or shut up...no more patience for some that says they have a masters...yet they have zero...zhilch ...nada...a single spec of logic or common.sense...so until you my friend can prove such a thing to me...The conversation is done...cause i do have pretty good idea the forces that would be required to shear snap tear rip them sections apart.

A pleasure talking to you......have a nice day.
edit on 053131p://f21Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join