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: 40
420
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
just thought i would post page 151 then it can be discussed in length...there is not a link as it is from a pdf of the report that i have....


Chapter 6
OBSERVATIONS AND TIMELINE OF STRUCTURAL EVENTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Development of the probable collapse sequence for each tower was shaped by evidence gathered in the
investigation, from photographs and videos, design and maintenance documents, and eyewitness
accounts. Data about the events following the aircraft impact were primarily obtained from three sources:
• Photographic and videographic records that had been catalogued and time stamped for the
NIST Investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A)
• Interviews of individuals in the towers who survived and those who received telephone calls
from individuals trapped in the tower (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)
• Interviews of emergency response personnel and emergency communication records (NIST
NCSTAR 1-8)
Changes in structural performance are generally difficult, if not impossible, to perceive until significant
deformation has taken place relative to the dimensions of the structure, and depend on the detail and
resolution of the image being examined and the vantage point of the photographer. Observations of
structural performance for the WTC towers include severed components, local deflections or buckling,
possible sagging of floors, and relative alignment of columns or building sections.
Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where
possible, all four faces were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding
of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and result in
incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due
north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof
(McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the
building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.
Photographs and videos provided information about events at or near the exterior walls of the towers.
Events that occurred in the building interior were predicted through analytical simulations validated by
exterior observations of aircraft impact, fire dynamics, and structural response.
Evidence was used in the analyses in three ways: (1) to determine input parameters, such as the aircraft
speed and direction upon impact, (2) to impose time-related constraints upon an analysis, such as
imposing observed broken windows over time to constrain the spread of fire, or (3) to validate analysis
results, such as global stability after impact and during thermal loading.
Observations of structural behavior were broken into two groups: key observations and noted
observations. Key observations were significant structural events that were explicitly addressed in or
used to validate the structural analyses. Noted observations were events that may have been a structural
response, but could not be conclusively identified as to their significance to the structural response.
Key observations were used to develop a timeline of structural events for each tower. Structural analyses
were used to support development of the probable collapse sequence for each tower and to develop and
refine understanding of the probable collapse sequence of events between observations.

what i do find interesting is when i was told about the use of photgraphs being arbitrary...when throughout the report NIST is referencing video,photographic,witness accounts but when we use it it is not right..but as you read the words majority is done by observation...funny that...they had all the physical evidence there but they destroyed it.

458page report can be found here
edit on 043131p://f28Friday by plube because: (no reason given)


NOTE: notice in the first few sentences....not once did they mention PHYSICAL evidence....how can you write a completely thorough report without using the physical evidence also..just thought i would point that out.
edit on 043131p://f31Friday by plube because: NOTE




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
and if...the floors are already collapsing does that mean that the upper section is INTACT or is it undergoing structural failure on it's own.


Depends on what mean by intact. The bottom of the top section would of course be severely damaged. The higher floors may also be damaged, as your photo suggested. The key question is, does the top section behave like a rigid structure.
There is no evidence the top section completely collapsed. In fact, if you look at the video I posted on the previous page, you can see the fire blowing out of a floor, indicating it is collapsing, exactly where you would expect it when the top section is falling on it, suggesting the the top section behaves like a rigid structure.


Originally posted by plube what i do find interesting is when i was told about the use of photgraphs being arbitrary...when throughout the report NIST is referencing video,photographic,witness accounts but when we use it it is not right..but as you read the words majority is done by observation...funny that...they had all the physical evidence there but they destroyed it.


I accused you of drawing those lines arbitrarily. If you do a proper analysis, photographic evidence can be very useful. But you must include your error margin, you must determine for how much of the top section collapsed for certain, for how much it is uncertain and for how much you know for certain it did not collapse at all.
When you look carefully at the video I posted, you will notice that for at least 13 floors of the top section it is just impossible to determine if they collapsed, simply because those are either obscured at all time, or still intact. So you are left with speculation about 1 or 2 floors. Even if they collapsed, that does not invalidate Bazants theory. The bottom line is, the photographic evidence is inconclusive if you want to prove the top section collapsed before it hit the ground.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


just to show i do do that...and i also try to be helpful...and i do take onboard what you say...now...you gave a link to you tube...and i am kind enough to go look,download,analyze frame by frame...break it down...extract the images....use the building to the left as reference...now lets take a look.



we will call this 0.0sec.... i place a line representing roofline of tower....off of the building on the left so you will notice i am not just picking spots on the tower itself.....i set a point below the upper sect to see while the upper section collapses if it is impacting the floors below.



now this is 16frames later...approx 0.5 seconds...being 32 frames per sec...but note the time reference is irrelevant...as long as frame intervals are the same...to save arguments on semantics.
now we see roofline has dropped...now i am guessin here..would you agree maybe two floors..even one is fine..so if it has dropped two floor would not impact show on the lower line...maybe not yet huh.



now you might as why the diagonal line...that is to show that if the whole section is coming down intact..it should be causing deformation in that corner at some point ...i mean it has dropped i would venture a guess of approximately four floors here. would you agree.



now we see that it has come down approx 6 floors...my ref points are still the same...now please keep in mind the outside walls are steel box columns...so to me those should have already penetrated the lower section by those 6 same floors...Unless something very wrong is going on here..I think something very wrong is going on...

but please answer me this also...would the Physical evidence not be the most important and telling evidence....i mean it would to me..because with it we could determine the precise forces acting on any given piece.


edit on 063131p://f07Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 063131p://f08Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
You see the more and more i analyze..break it down..the more and more it confirms to be the Bazant model does not hold water....but hey he has pulled his work off his site...as so many people are saying it does not apply in this case....in some senarios..it might possibly apply...but really i don't myself believe it would apply in any senario with a building that was contructed with a Steel central core...but that is my opinion.
but plese feel fre to point vids out to me...because as you see when you break it down it gives a different picture than what the video would have your eyes believe.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Now i have gone a touch further now...and this would be about the 2.5 sec mark


i would say approx 7-8 floors now and has it penetrated that vector on the right by that amount
personally does not look like it to me.

so this one is about the 3sec mark or 96 frames...down yet another two floors...look at the mast.
yet i can still see the vertical line at the vector that i have drawn in.
(look closely)
NOTE:ADDED anotheor 0.5 sec or 16 frames

I see from this that the lower structure is doing what it should be doing at this point..it is resisting the collapse of the upper section....as it should do...the upper section is gone...now this is from your video...

Would you even possibly now agree the upper section is truely collapse on itself first...

but you know what...for me i think you will just never agree...but thanks to you it will show to others what is happening...so at this point i am going to thank for asking these questions.
Note2: each photo is 16 frames apart from each ...just tomake the ref more accurate...and show the consistancy of the photos.

edit on 073131p://f13Friday by plube because: NOTE

edit on 073131p://f14Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073131p://f15Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073131p://f26Friday by plube because: note2



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by plubeI think something very wrong is going on...


I have to agree. What is going wrong is your analysis. You are not keeping track of the height of the top section, you are making guesses. It is very easy to keep exact track of the height. I took a look at your pictures, the third one seems to be most relevant. The black line in your 3e picture is about 15 floors below the roof. The collapse started somewhere between the 12th and 14th floor, lets assume 13. So that corner that still looks intact is on the 15th and 14th floor from the top. On the 13th floor from the top it is obscured by smoke and dust and you can not see what is happening there. Now even if the 13th floor and maybe even the 12th floor from the top got damaged, does that invalidate Bazants theory? You also have to considered that the top section can be falling behind the lower perimeter columns,so they don't necessarily need to buckle. In fact, when you go to 36 seconds you actually see some columns still standing, proving at least not all columns did buckle.



but please answer me this also...would the Physical evidence not be the most important and telling evidence....i mean it would to me..because with it we could determine the precise forces acting on any given piece.


Physical evidence was also examined, but I agree that part of their analysis was lacking.

Edit:Just as an interesting side note, evidence that the top section at least got damaged before it hit the ground does exist: some of the core columns were still standing after collapse. It would seem that the only possible way for that to happen is for them to pierce the top section.
edit on 7-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
so this one is about the 3sec mark or 96 frames...down yet another two floors...look at the mast.
yet i can still see the vertical line at the vector that i have drawn in.
(look closely)


That vertical line is called a compression artifact. Try saving the image as gif or png and the line is gone.



I see from this that the lower structure is doing what it should be doing at this point..it is resisting the collapse of the upper section....as it should do...the upper section is gone...now this is from your video...


Everything is obscured. You can't tell anything from this image.



Would you even possibly now agree the upper section is truely collapse on itself first...


Not from your analysis.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Or maybe you are assuming its not there, as some hours ago you didn't even know what was in the report at all. You can read page 151 in the final report for a summary.


I knew what was in the report years ago. I take this as your way of saying that no, you don't actually know that what you claim is in there, is in there.

At this point you have two options to prove me wrong: find NIST's first WTC FAQ (they removed it from their own website, while retaining the 2nd one) and show that it doesn't say what I clearly remember reading there, or else go through the NIST report and validate your own claim that they addressed the rapidity of failures that would be required for a symmetrical and simultaneous drop for WTC1's top floors.

When I say there is no explanation of this in their report, there isn't any quote I'm going to be able to find except for the whole freaking report, to prove it isn't in there.

But when you say it is in there, all you would have to do, is show me where.

Don't be trying to make it my fault that you told me something was in the report when it actually isn't and I know for a fact you never read it anywhere in there. I realized and admitted I confused NIST's "progressive collapse" terminology (ie chaos that can't be modeled) with everyone else's who assumed and still assumes that pancake theory was accurate. Big deal. (And btw this is very different from not know what was in the report "at all," because they didn't even try to analyze the global collapses in the first place, only an initiating event. And how would I know this again?
)

Now are you really going to make this into a petty argument spanning indefinitely through an infinite number of pages in this thread, like I will make it, or are you just going to admit you don't actually know of it being anywhere in there?
edit on 7-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You
know what...i believe you dont have eyes.....if i want to put in a marker line to show no problem...but the really is no need...because i am using the building to the left the lines do not need to move but if you would like me to put a little vertical line in there...no problem...but most people can see exactly what is going on the...the upper sect moves down not imacting the lower level by the same number of floors it is dropping..so you know what,,,just as i said i used your model...i used a reference...and your the only person that does not get it...so you can come back with these things....but you had made yourself look a fool, and you want me to believe the words coming across like you have any idea what your talkng about...i am not playing a game with you....i even said you would still come up with little things...rather than just using common sense...i have shown the top section copressing with out coimpacting the lower section...so not going to do anything else for you....you show me...and a gif would just mean it would run it in highspeed cause you are lessening the frames....bye.
edit on 053131p://f26Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by bsbray11
What demolition theory are you assuming when you say the scores of testimonies of explosives collectively disprove CD? I thought you somehow knew they weren't caused by explosives, but other random things? Now you're changing your mind, and admit they could have been explosives?


So which is it? Are you saying the explosions could in fact have been caused by explosives, or are you saying you have proof they must have been something else?



More posturing and deflection or just an inability to read? Is the rising Kundalini distracting you again?

en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)
"Troll (Internet) Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."


Sound familiar? Read the posts more carefully and get back to me.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
This only brings up new mysteries, like how the terrorists got thermite inside of the columns, and how they got a hold of nanothermite. Who would have access to a high tech US military grade explosive?



Ahhh, I believe that's THE POINT!!!

There were no terrorists, well not in the sense you mean.


how they got a hold of nanothermite. Who would have access to a high tech US military grade explosive


They're one and the same my friend, that's how.

This thread is a HUGE leap toward the truth.

Replicating observations seen in the WTC using a method ridiculed by Believers, a great day, glad I logged on today!

peace, kiwi







edit on 7-1-2011 by kiwifoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Look at the definition of weaseling I posted earlier and then look at your last post.


When you're ready to maturely address the question:

Are you saying the explosions could in fact have been caused by explosives, or are you saying you have proof they must have been something else?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
At least NIST recognise the tilting of WTC1 not easily seen viewed in plb's video, there is other video from a more oblique angle that is more explicit, in fact I am thinking one one in particular that was recently released by NIST under the FOIA and it more clearly shows the mast tilting from the vertical, and also shows the mast in recovery for a moment. To me that indicates that WTC1's upper portion above the strike zone also disintegrated and fell away, but to a lesser degree where a large part managed to hit the street, but also small enough to totally disintegrate when it hit the street. The closeups in plb's link do show some signs of chaos in the top levels immediately before collapse, (and that only enhances disintegration of the upper portion) hence the dark smoke plumes to the far right at the top and the far left at the top, although the left ones may look white it is hard to tell. But on the lowest line where there is a fire on the right, there is other activity far left of centre, of white light flashes, (not flame as such) also immediately before the collapse. That light spreads horizontally across to the left as a series of white dots at the moment of collapse. There is also a flash left of centre a few stories above that line at almost the same moment before collapse, around 2.07 to 2.08 in plb's video link, there needs to be a reason for those flashes, they are not popping windows.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I did mention a page number, it seems to me your question is addressed fine. If not, please be more specific.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You
know what...i believe you dont have eyes.....if i want to put in a marker line to show no problem...but the really is no need...because i am using the building to the left the lines do not need to move but if you would like me to put a little vertical line in there...no problem...


Please show what line you are talking about. I only see smoke and dust.


but most people can see exactly what is going on the...the upper sect moves down not imacting the lower level by the same number of floors it is dropping.


Until you actually measure it instead of guessing it. Then you see it matches perfectly. Why don't you draw boxes like you did before? Now you can actually accurately determine the location and shape.


so you know what,,,just as i said i used your model...i used a reference...and your the only person that does not get it...so you can come back with these things....but you had made yourself look a fool, and you want me to believe the words coming across like you have any idea what your talkng about...i am not playing a game with you....i even said you would still come up with little things...rather than just using common sense...i have shown the top section copressing with out coimpacting the lower section...so not going to do anything else for you....you show me...and a gif would just mean it would run it in highspeed cause you are lessening the frames....bye.


I pretty accurately made my point. What exactly is wrong of what I said? What floor number I spoke of is wrong?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There are no patterns of explosions shown in actual CDs that were seen in the collapse of the WTC so if there was a demolition, it was not "controlled" in any sense. Random noises that may or may not be explosions and that do not display any characteristics of demolition must only be random noises until shown to be otherwise.

As you do not wish to contribute other than to challenge and petulantly demand answers, reread the definition of "Troll" I posted previously. I think it fits you very well.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There are no patterns of explosions shown in actual CDs that were seen in the collapse of the WTC so if there was a demolition, it was not "controlled" in any sense.


So you are saying that if explosions don't match up with some pre-determined sequence, there can be no control over the damage the explosives are doing to the structure. Have I got this right so far?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I did mention a page number, it seems to me your question is addressed fine. If not, please be more specific.


You gave me a page number to a general summary as if I was unfamiliar with the whole report.

I'm asking for where they explain how the symmetry of WTC1's drop could have been achieved. Ie all four corners and faces, and the antenna (supported by the core) dropping within a fraction of a second of each other, so that the whole block is dropping straight down into itself.

Each truss spanning between the perimeter and core columns was independent, so one truss pulling one perimeter section is does not automatically equate to the same thing happening at the same time to enough perimeter columns, and somehow core columns, to cause the observation.

This is what I was originally talking about, since you seem to be reminded again already. So do you have the pages from the NIST report where this specifically is discussed?
edit on 7-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
There are no patterns of explosions shown in actual CDs that were seen in the collapse of the WTC so if there was a demolition, it was not "controlled" in any sense.


So you are saying that if explosions don't match up with some pre-determined sequence, there can be no control over the damage the explosives are doing to the structure. Have I got this right so far?


No. Controlled demolitions control the collapse through precuts, cabling, and multiple charges. There is no evidence for such in the collapse of the WTC buildings.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
No. Controlled demolitions control the collapse through precuts, cabling, and multiple charges. There is no evidence for such in the collapse of the WTC buildings.


Okay, in your last post you said this:


Originally posted by pteridine
There are no patterns of explosions shown in actual CDs that were seen in the collapse of the WTC so if there was a demolition, it was not "controlled" in any sense.


So first of all, can you make your mind up?

Are you looking for cables, or a specific, pre-determined pattern of explosions, or both? And is there anything else you want to throw out there before I rip this argument apart? Because you don't actually need cables and neither do the explosions have to fit a specific pattern/sequence to cause damage to the structure over time. They really could be set off "randomly" at distanced intervals until the whole structure is ready to come down, because there is no reason doing this would cause any real problems.

Any explosion that caused damage to the structure is equivalent to a "pre-cut." And we already know there were multiple explosions. So that part is irrelevant since it would actually match with the explosion testimonies, not negate them as being explosives.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join