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: 36
420
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Going by plb's reasoning, Wt7 should still be standing, it was 92 metres, around 300ft away. It should be however, safe to assume that most of the debris from WTC1 was mostly dissipated somewhere in between. On the face of it another anomaly, not properly addressed in the OS, almost contradictory in fact.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Some more concrete values can be found in Bazants work, but I think it is more important to understand the mechanism. As for the rest, I don't know what evidence you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


They are not personal...but they point out that you my friend have stated things over and over and people have shown you over and over with example after example..and the first person to say something personal was your statement towards me....now the paint can demo had it's relevance even if you did not understand it...also i said put a scale under it..as your stating right now...how strange that is....I have been civil and have trusted you in saying you have a masters....and then you said you were and engineer....and no matter what is presented to you..you have tried to twist words and never acknowledge what is being presented...then you make a statement that a nine year old would say....so i pointed it out...and i thought to myself my time is valuble and when you present solid statments only to have childishly twisted...then it becomes a non debate.
edit on 063131p://f28Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


well well pointed out smurfy...your right...all things being equal that should be the case...and in building seven Bazant's work is a complete and utter failure ...it does not work for Building 7 one little tinsy bit.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I am sorry to upset you, not my intention.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Heck i am far from upset....terribly disappointed that people presenting thoroughly valid statements with data...photos...videos.....and highly intelligent rebuttles would get retorts that are completely unfounded and suspect....if i were upset i would have called you a troll....but i don't think your being a troll....but you are not being logical...either.

NOTE: I would not side with the Bazant Report because it is being torn to shreds by the community through peer review.....just a suggestion
edit on 063131p://f34Tuesday by plube because: note



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Some more concrete values can be found in Bazants work, but I think it is more important to understand the mechanism. As for the rest, I don't know what evidence you are talking about.


Bazant will have to come up with a completely new mechanism because as it stands, his current model can't predict both the collapse times and the amount of debris ejection simultaneously.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
My claim is that the explosions were not CD. This is because there is no physical evidence of CD.



Argument from Ignorance

Description
Nothing is known about A. Yet a conclusion is drawn about A.
Facts may be given all around a particular area, yet nothing specific is said about the area. Based on this circumstantial evidence, it is assumed that something may be known about A.
A variant is where a lack of evidence is assumed to be proof, for example when a murder suspect does not have an alibi.


changingminds.org...


So your claim is based on a common fallacy.

Not to mention completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary, whether it be the numerous reports of explosions or whatever else for which you have endless (illogical) excuses. Not to say those things are proof but they are what you would expect if there was a demolition and so they are direct evidence in favor of that, as opposed to planes-and-fires alone theories which do not predict scores of witnesses experiencing explosions in all 3 buildings before and during the "collapses."

I never said explosions = controlled demolition. That's not my reasoning. But apparently your reasoning is explosions = not a controlled demolition, and I'm asking what specific demolition theory you are basing that claim on.
edit on 4-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


For the first couple of floors you don't really need a more complex model, as the mass of the debris is still insignificant. Your argument is basically only relevant for collapse time.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
For the first couple of floors you don't really need a more complex model, as the mass of the debris is still insignificant. Your argument is basically only relevant for collapse time.


It has to do with the entire collapses as much as the collapse time has to do with the entire collapses. Look at the paper again. If you don't have 50-95% of the mass within the footprint, the entire collapse takes too long to match reality, the energy left over for a seismic reading no longer exists, and when you get to figures like 80% or more of the debris or so being outside of the footprints, which is a more realistic observation based on the photographs, then there is no guarantee you even have a total collapse to the ground.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ok, but thats not what Anok wanted to know.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

...i am sure i can find a few more images that back me up now if i can find one or two then i am sure there would have been more....but i remind of your last frivolous statement that i will no longer approach as an intelligent being....foolish me for allowig myself to actually care enough to explain points to you.


There was a thread a while back which contained a ton of photos of beams with angular "cuts" in them. I can't remember who started it, I thought it was TrueAmerican or Seventh but I can't find it...maybe someone else remembers?

Even though they aren't needed here, if you are still looking for them, maybe you'll have better luck than I did. Point is, there are many photos out there proving your point on this



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Some more concrete values can be found in Bazants work, but I think it is more important to understand the mechanism. As for the rest, I don't know what evidence you are talking about.


I see you're playing the 'let's pretend nothing presented in this thread is evidence' tactic.

No, YOU made the claim that the top was too much for the bottom to hold because it was moving, 'at the speed of sound' (have you realised yet how stupid that claim is?), YOU need to show your evidence of that claim not tell me to look at Bazants report. If you believe your own claim you should know the figures I asked for, otherwise how would you know squat other than someone else said so?

Be honest, you are not an engineer are you?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
[Not to mention completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary, whether it be the numerous reports of explosions or whatever else for which you have endless (illogical) excuses. Not to say those things are proof but they are what you would expect if there was a demolition and so they are direct evidence in favor of that, as opposed to planes-and-fires alone theories which do not predict scores of witnesses experiencing explosions in all 3 buildings before and during the "collapses."



So your argument is that randomly spaced explosions or things that sound like explosions are direct evidence in favor of CD. You believe that during a fire, there are no explosions of common sealed vessels, such as overheated fire extinguishers. There are no sounds of building failure that sound like explosions. You claim that an explosion or series of explosions initated the collapse, but we have no evidence of explosions initiating the collapse. If a singular explosion did initiate the collapse then we do not have a CD but a plain old demolition that, once started, needed only gravity to finish it. From the video evidence, we see initiation at the point of impact, so we must conclude that any explosives were placed at that point by someone. Who do you postulate set the charge or charges at that point and when? Why didn't a collapse occur on detonation?Why were no flashes of the explosions seen?
This is an interesting position that you have taken. A single initiation point followed by catastrophic collapse. Now all you need find is evidence of some explosives on the floors that were damaged by the plane and fires.

Given your logic, twisted and eroded structural members are what you would expect if there was a DEW attack and so they are direct evidence in favor of that, as opposed to planes-and-fires alone theories. Give Judy Wood a call and let her know about this.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
So your argument is that randomly spaced explosions or things that sound like explosions are direct evidence in favor of CD.


What's your proof that they were "randomly spaced"? Once again, can you let me in on the specific demolition configuration you're assuming and comparing all of this to?


You believe that during a fire, there are no explosions of common sealed vessels, such as overheated fire extinguishers.


Yeah, overheated fire extinguishers, fireballs rocketing down 1000+ feet of elevator shaft without rupturing the drywall shafts themselves to explode in the basements, cans of paint exploding, cans of Lysol exploding, I've heard every pitiful excuse you guys can come up with, and none of them make any more sense when compared with the full spectrum of witness testimonies as the obvious idea that they were actually caused by explosives. Explosives explode, they don't have to be near the fires or impacts (which many of the explosions weren't), they can do serious structural damage (which many of the explosions did, in the lobby and basement for example), they can injure people (and people were interviewed from hospital beds saying they were injured by heavy explosions), and even terrorists can and have used them, allegedly, in the WTC basements, in the past.


You claim that an explosion or series of explosions initated the collapse


Stop lying. I never made any such claim. I make it a point not to make claims considering I'm only here to rattle you know-it-alls who think you already have it all worked out, since you obviously don't.


As far as calling Judy Wood, well you know I predicted an epic rant that didn't address any of the claims you were making, just like I predicted you would weasel away from your own claims before ever substantiating any of them. You're too predictable.


Originally posted by bsbray11
So what specific configuration are you assuming when you say the explosions heard at the WTC don't match with demolition?



Even though you continually refuse to answer that question, I do already know the answer. You don't have any idea how the WTC towers could be demolished and you don't even want to know, so you constantly imagine the most ridiculous and inconsistent scenarios just to bolster your fallacious arguments. You don't actually know that the explosions were "randomly spaced" or that they weren't indicative of a CD. You just spout that stuff off in your long-winded rants to make to act like you know what you're talking about, because that act is all your posts are. Big difference between acting and actually knowing though. And that's why for several posts in a row, on any subject where we engage in these "discussions," you constantly refuse to back up your own claims when I call you on them, and spend post after post derailing and trying to divert the subject away from your own claims, or you having to prove anything, because you know you can't. You don't know a quarter of what you act like you do, regarding these "collapses." You don't know how they came down, you don't know what all was inside of them, just like you don't know what was causing all of the explosions. But you can always keep pretending that you do.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


An object that falls 400 meter close to free fall speed will have a significant speed, enough to severely deform it. Speed of sound was on over exaggeration on my part and indeed not very accurate (more like 1/5 of it), but doesn't invalidate the argument.

But this whole line of reasoning seems to be going nowhere. What is the fact there were no stacked floors supposed to prove?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
...What is the fact there were no stacked floors supposed to prove?


I believe that would disprove any possibility of the "pancake" collapse which some poeple have claimed to be the method of collapse.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well well just to carify as you could cleary see from my maths....which by the way were approx but fairly accurate...try 1/10 now you being a math person(stated to me in the past) have to understand the difference...shall we do so simple math to show the margin of error in a magnetude of 10.

Driving down the road..i hit a child doing 10mph.....now driving down the raod i hit same said child at 100mph

You tell me the difference.

as i said the towers fell at approximately 30m/s.....Speed of sound....340m/s

now as Anok so politely stated ....where are the trusses....where are the 110 metal decks that should be neatly stacked on one another....Please explain....And please do not keep coming and asking questions....why not answer some of ours for a change just to be good sport.

edit on 033131p://f01Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


It also disproves that the resistance was close to non existing. Ejecting complete floors requires significant amounts of energy. So in a CD where the resistance is removed, you would definitely expect the floors to stack. The argument is a two edged sword.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well well just to carify as you could cleary see from my maths....which by the way were approx but fairly accurate...try 1/10 now you being a math person(stated to me in the past) have to understand the difference...shall we do so simple math to show the margin of error in a magnetude of 10.

Driving down the road..i hit a child doing 10mph.....now driving down the raod i hit same said child at 100mph

You tell me the difference.

as i said the towers fell at approximately 30m/s.....Speed of sound....340m/s

now as Anok so politely stated ....where are the trusses....where are the 110 metal decks that should be neatly stacked on one another....Please explain....And please do not keep coming and asking questions....why not answer some of ours for a change just to be good sport.

edit on 033131p://f01Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)


Like I say, they are totally deformed as result of the enormous chaos and impact. If CD was used, why would there be no neatly stacked floors? Since the supports would be compromised, the resistance is lower, and less material is deformed and ejected. So the floors as result fall straight down and neatly stack.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join