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: 58
420
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
So from this statement we see Jones' trying to brush over the implausibility of this theory and you bought it.


"Brush over" with a realistic scenario. I know reality doesn't figure anywhere into your equations but bear with me.


First, he claims 10 to 100 tons of the red chips, unreacted, are in the dust. Does that sound like a "nooks and crannies" worth to you?


It's possible, and that 10-100 tons is a very wide estimate, not "claim."


If a larger mass went off, why didn't it melt the steel and the thin film if it is such an energetic material?


How do you know it didn't? Even in the video in the OP you can see how steel on one side can be melted completely through while steel directly adjacent to it isn't melted at all.


The reaction being incapable of sustaining itself invalidates Jones' claims.


For the second time in a row, nowhere in that paper does it say the thin film is all that would have been applied to compromise the steel.




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

If a larger mass went off, why didn't it melt the steel and the thin film if it is such an energetic material?


How do you know it didn't? Even in the video in the OP you can see how steel on one side can be melted completely through while steel directly adjacent to it isn't melted at all.


The reaction being incapable of sustaining itself invalidates Jones' claims.


For the second time in a row, nowhere in that paper does it say the thin film is all that would have been applied to compromise the steel.


I can understand why you are dancing around and can't explain Jones' comments. Jones postulated that the thin film was the remains of a larger charge that had been quenched as it reached the steel. Had the steel melted on one side, the thermo-paint would have ignited and melted the steel. How is it still there?
Allow 32 coats of thermo-paint for a two inch charge. This is a really odd way to apply a demo charge and hardly subtle but fantasies like Jones' allow it. The charge is ignited but stops as it is quenched by the steel, leaving a thin layer.
If it is quenched, how can it be a demolition charge?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I can understand why you are dancing around and can't explain Jones' comments. Jones postulated that the thin film was the remains of a larger charge that had been quenched as it reached the steel. Had the steel melted on one side, the thermo-paint would have ignited and melted the steel. How is it still there?


What happens when the thermate explodes like in the OP video instead of burning all the way through as an incendiary only? There are all kinds of possibilities, just no proof since there has been no investigation into that at all.

Before you start saying this is impossible and that's impossible, look at what Nat Geo said was impossible, but then turned out to be so wrong that it was embarrassing. Where information is missing from the total lack of investigation into this side of things, you just start insinuating all these things are impossible based on nothing but bias, just like Nat Geo apparently (or else the people they hired just weren't that bright -- 175 pounds of thermite placed so that it couldn't achieve what less than 5 pounds of thermate could?). I'm not assuming anything when data isn't there, and I know you like to whine about it but I don't like making up theories on a whim for the one and only purpose of you spewing over them and deflecting the burden of proof from yourself. I don't have a use for that. That is why I honestly and genuinely tell you that I'm not here to tell you exactly what happened. I'm here because people like you seem to think a lot of things that you maybe really shouldn't feel so sure about. These are the kinds of little assumptions I'm talking about, that with a total lack of data you just take the opportunity to imply it's impossible anyway.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So you must already know all those combustibles were destroyed. Thanks for the support.


Are you saying that when you smash a combustible object into small unrecognizable pieces it will no longer burn? Or what else do you mean by "all those combustibles were destroyed"?

I do understand why people who believe stuff like paint cans are a valid model to see if a building collapses, materials no longer burns when you smash it to pieces, or the substance that is supposed to have melted steel stopped reacting a soon it came in contact with the steel, have so much trouble with the NIST report. But seriously, do you really believe that such crap is better than what NIST came with? Is this really the best the truth movement has to offer?
edit on 23-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I can understand why you are dancing around and can't explain Jones' comments. Jones postulated that the thin film was the remains of a larger charge that had been quenched as it reached the steel. Had the steel melted on one side, the thermo-paint would have ignited and melted the steel. How is it still there?


What happens when the thermate explodes like in the OP video instead of burning all the way through as an incendiary only? There are all kinds of possibilities, just no proof since there has been no investigation into that at all.

Before you start saying this is impossible and that's impossible, look at what Nat Geo said was impossible, but then turned out to be so wrong that it was embarrassing. Where information is missing from the total lack of investigation into this side of things, you just start insinuating all these things are impossible based on nothing but bias, just like Nat Geo apparently (or else the people they hired just weren't that bright -- 175 pounds of thermite placed so that it couldn't achieve what less than 5 pounds of thermate could?). I'm not assuming anything when data isn't there, and I know you like to whine about it but I don't like making up theories on a whim for the one and only purpose of you spewing over them and deflecting the burden of proof from yourself. I don't have a use for that. That is why I honestly and genuinely tell you that I'm not here to tell you exactly what happened. I'm here because people like you seem to think a lot of things that you maybe really shouldn't feel so sure about. These are the kinds of little assumptions I'm talking about, that with a total lack of data you just take the opportunity to imply it's impossible anyway.


Your assumption is that Jones found thermite. His paper proved nothing of the sort. You quoted Jones' paper in your argument and you are trying to deflect my rebuttal because you cannot respond to it. Jones has no idea what the red chips are because he and his team completely botched the analysis and then he made statements in the paper without thinking. You even managed to quote one of his more foolish comments.

You are still equating thermite with thermate, another error, while whining about the Nat Geo show and their "bias." What about the bias of all the "some-people-for-truth" organizations? What about Cole's bias? What about your bias?

I understand that your big thrill is trying to punch holes in the NIST report and that you don't really have any better explanations of things. In fact, no CT'er has come up with a better explanation or any evidence that would lead people to believe that the WTC was an inside job or that the collapses were necessary for some purpose.

If you still want to use the conclusions in Paintman Jones' paper then you will have to defend it.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why is there a 1 hour restriction? The fires burned "weeks to months". And I don't think you can use a room fire time-temperature curve for collapsed buildings. If you think you can, your source clearly agrees that temperatures above 1800F are possible.


Sorry I thought we were still discussing the failing trusses. I guess I missed the switch to the fire in the rubble pile?

My source is relevant to the room temps prior to the collapse, so you still have to explain how fires got hot enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail before you even begin to explain the fires in the rubble piles.
edit on 1/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you saying that when you smash a combustible object into small unrecognizable pieces it will no longer burn?


No, but they would burn up much faster, and were scattered over a much larger area that they originally took up inside the buildings.


have so much trouble with the NIST report.


I thought it was you having trouble with the NIST report? I just wanted to know how thermal expansion is supposed to exert a "pulling" force on the exterior columns, and what kind of forces you would get.


But seriously, do you really believe that such crap is better than what NIST came with?


What "crap"? Maybe you could say that if the things we're arguing about were actually investigated, but the only theory taxpayer money ever considered was NIST's truss failure theory. No tests for explosives, ignored witness testimony, all of that just blatantly white-washed.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I thought it was you having trouble with the NIST report? I just wanted to know how thermal expansion is supposed to exert a "pulling" force on the exterior columns, and what kind of forces you would get.


I have explained this to the extend of my teaching abilities, and pointed you to many papers from engineers and scientists who examined and described this known phenomena. I don't know what I could possibly do to make it more clear. I think the problem is that you don't want to understand it.



What "crap"? Maybe you could say that if the things we're arguing about were actually investigated, but the only theory taxpayer money ever considered was NIST's truss failure theory. No tests for explosives, ignored witness testimony, all of that just blatantly white-washed.


For example Jones crap. But basically any hypothesis I heard coming from truthers is total crap and pales next to the NIST report. Why do want there to be an investigation into explosives when there doesn't even exist a slightly plausible hypothesis of how they were used, nor has there any evidence turned up after all these years? What exactly do you want to be investigated that could prove explosives? Wasn't the problem that all evidence was shipped to China?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think temperatures of ~700 degrees were claimed. I don't see how your linked page contradicts that. Maybe you have access to the source article that shows the complete time-temperature curve? Anyway, this curve is, as you already mentioned, not representative of all fire conditions. Although I am not sure where you read "no real world fire is as efficient as a test" and will be cooler as result of lack of oxygen. It totally depends on the test and on the real world fire. You can design a test that underestimates, overestimates, or represents reality exactly (burn a real building), depending on what you want to know.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So, because the furniture is not intact, that prevents the pieces from burning?

This makes no sense whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry I thought we were still discussing the failing trusses. I guess I missed the switch to the fire in the rubble pile?

My source is relevant to the room temps prior to the collapse, so you still have to explain how fires got hot enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail before you even begin to explain the fires in the rubble piles.
edit on 1/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Aparently you don't understand thermal expansion, or the NIST reports.

I suggest contacting a local fire protection engineer or other engineer with simmilar qualifications to explain it to you.

No, a landscape engineer is not a good source.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


wow what a thing to say...or have you lost what ANOK is talking about....he is discussing the failure that led to the collapse in the first place....and you move onto the rubble...why miss direct things....pay attention to who is discussing what at any given time and it will help...now BS is discussing the the fire situation in the rubble.

Just would like to see things stay focussed....this thread has moved from what the thread title is about...i understand that....but as far as Cole and Nat Geo....Cole has shown that Nat Geo out and out lied to the public...they did a completely irresponsible senario....they showed a uncompressed charge of thermite sitting in a skirt around a steel column...how unprofessional in every aspect...it is like remoiving the powder from a fire cracker and expecting it to go boom....

Explosives work by being compacted and not providing a place for them to go except in the direction they are designed to expel their charge....

the times when i was a kid taking apart bullets to get the powerd out of them...man...stupid thing to do but hey it was fun....but once the powder was out it was useless...made pretty smoke though....

as for fires reaching the temps to melt steel what rubbish is that....as for the fires getting to those kinds of temps in the rubble very possible....but what were the combustibles at that point....small finite particles....that were mixed with a heck of a lot of non combustibles....very odd indeed...but obviously not odd to the believers in here.....

the Madrid fire is a fine example of just office combustibles and the heat transference after hours upon hours of burn time....yet it still handled the fire well. .....also as ANOK says.....the people who are so willing to trust....start to show your proof...that actually relates to these circumstances...because there are many many more people really starting to question the OS....and thankfully they are.

I should have a working model done in about another months time that will represent what happens when key pieces of the core are breached and as i am doing the model it is amazing how it is looking similar into the way the towers fell....and i have been trying Bazants model also and you know what.....IT DOES NOT WORK....can't even get it close to looking like the tower collapse.

what almost happens everytime is the collapse slows down very quickly within 20 - 30 floors and falls to the side....strange how it seems to follow the laws of physics.

but don't worry....i will present it here for all to see.

the nice thing is that i sent off emails to Richard Gage and David Chandler we will see if they will give me some more assistance...as it is very time consuming.

but so far the closet thing to look like the way the towers came down is by comprimising the core from bottom up...Interesting it is.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
I should have a working model done in about another months time that will represent what happens when key pieces of the core are breached and as i am doing the model it is amazing how it is looking similar into the way the towers fell....and i have been trying Bazants model also and you know what.....IT DOES NOT WORK....can't even get it close to looking like the tower collapse.

what almost happens everytime is the collapse slows down very quickly within 20 - 30 floors and falls to the side....strange how it seems to follow the laws of physics.

but don't worry....i will present it here for all to see.

the nice thing is that i sent off emails to Richard Gage and David Chandler we will see if they will give me some more assistance...as it is very time consuming.

but so far the closet thing to look like the way the towers came down is by comprimising the core from bottom up...Interesting it is.


Maybe I should create a prefabbed snippet of text for this: Bazants model does not describe what happened in reality. It describes an unrealistic "best case" scenario in favor of the collapse not progressing. In reality this will never happen and all kind of additional forces and effect in favor of progression will occur.

It would be interesting to see an alternative model, although your earlier proposal including paint cans doesn't give me high hopes. What kind of model are you creating?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, because the furniture is not intact, that prevents the pieces from burning?

This makes no sense whatsoever.


Compare this to:


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you saying that when you smash a combustible object into small unrecognizable pieces it will no longer burn?


No, but they would burn up much faster, and were scattered over a much larger area that they originally took up inside the buildings.



Conclusion: you don't or can't read what I post.


Also compare to what you originally were insinuating, which is most relevant:


You also realize that 220 acres of office furniture (desks, chairs, plastics, wood, paper, etc. etc. etc.) are all fuels and will burn quite easily?


This is misleading because all the materials you were talking about were almost totally reduced to small debris and dust, and then scattered over a huge area. And they don't burn with nearly the same characteristics after you smash them into dust and small pieces. It's like burning a log vs. burning sawdust. Sawdust, or anything else blown into small pieces and dust will burn up very rapidly and then when it's burned up all it can do is start losing heat energy to the surrounding environment, just as rapidly. Would you even feed a stove fire with sawdust, if you expected it to heat your home for any length of time at all? You're a firefighter aren't you? I shouldn't have to tell you. You may as well stick to the story that the underground cars were burning for weeks before trying to say all the completely pulverized computer desks were, when you can hardly find a single piece of furniture intact from any of those buildings.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, because the furniture is not intact, that prevents the pieces from burning?

This makes no sense whatsoever.


Compare this to:


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you saying that when you smash a combustible object into small unrecognizable pieces it will no longer burn?


No, but they would burn up much faster, and were scattered over a much larger area that they originally took up inside the buildings.



Conclusion: you don't or can't read what I post.


False choice fallacy noted. I didn't SEE your post.

Anyway, you're still talking nonsense. You actually believe that every single piece of furniture and other materials were pulverized? I'm sorry for you.




Originally posted by bsbray11

Also compare to what you originally were insinuating, which is most relevant:


You also realize that 220 acres of office furniture (desks, chairs, plastics, wood, paper, etc. etc. etc.) are all fuels and will burn quite easily?


This is misleading because all the materials you were talking about were almost totally reduced to small debris and dust, and then scattered over a huge area. And they don't burn with nearly the same characteristics after you smash them into dust and small pieces. It's like burning a log vs. burning sawdust.


No, it's like burning a log, versus a log that has been put through a wood chipper. Either way, they STILL produce the SAME heat energy.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Sawdust, or anything else blown into small pieces and dust will burn up very rapidly and then when it's burned up all it can do is start losing heat energy to the surrounding environment, just as rapidly. Would you even feed a stove fire with sawdust, if you expected it to heat your home for any length of time at all?


Actually, many pellet stoves use pellets of wood, and work quite well. I had one myself back home in MA.



Originally posted by bsbray11
You're a firefighter aren't you? I shouldn't have to tell you. You may as well stick to the story that the underground cars were burning for weeks before trying to say all the completely pulverized computer desks were, when you can hardly find a single piece of furniture intact from any of those buildings.


Again, why do you expect to find whole desks in a collapse like this?

What about all of the other hundreds of tons of items in the towers?

Did I mention cars as a prime source of fuel? No. Not now, not ever.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have explained this to the extend of my teaching abilities, and pointed you to many papers from engineers and scientists who examined and described this known phenomena.


What paper did you post that describes this as a "known phenomena"? You say you pointed me to "many papers," well I really must have missed all that. I remember a news article about a study being posted, but not the technical paper itself, and that's the only thing I remember. Do you have actual technical papers describing how a thermally-expanded beam can cause an inward pulling force on exterior columns?


For example Jones crap. But basically any hypothesis I heard coming from truthers is total crap and pales next to the NIST report.


Unfortunately that doesn't make NIST's report any more conclusive, and I really don't know what you're expecting considering there was never any formal investigation by "truthers."

Do you really think thorough investigations of events like 9/11 just pop up on their own, no money or access to physical evidence or subpoena power or anything like that required at all?



Why do want there to be an investigation into explosives when there doesn't even exist a slightly plausible hypothesis of how they were used, nor has there any evidence turned up after all these years?


Have you heard of these things called "explosions" that were occurring all morning in all 3 of the skyscrapers that collapsed, that were never explained? Never explained as in, they are definitely evidence of something real that happened, but no one ever did ANY investigation into what caused them?

Well that's all fine and good for you, right? There were explosions, and no one knows what they were, but I guess you'd say they could have been anything and that's your reason for not caring any more than that. But what are a few things explosions could be evidence of, especially so many in so many different areas of the buildings? Hmmmmmm. What happened at the WTC in 1993? Hmmmmmm. Nope, I guess you're right, there's absolutely no evidence or even reason to believe that explosives were used at the WTC.




Jeff Birnbaum, EMT

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.
"I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, ‘What the F_____?’ I honestly thought it was Hollywood." - CEE News (02/13/02)

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out." - People (09/12/01) [Wayback Machine]

Edward Cachia, Firefighter

"As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." - NY Times, World Trade Center Task Force Interview

Karin Deshore, Fire Captain

"I went outside to see what I could do, when I saw the second building of the World Trade Center, still unbeknown to me the first one had collapse.

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion.

So here these explosions are getting bigger and louder and bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally explodes, still unaware that the other building had collapsed, I'm going in the water." - SF Gate (11/07/01)






"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions." - News clip: 'America Responds'





I could keep going with these but it doesn't matter how many I post. It still gets to your eyeballs, ears, whatever, and then is turned right back around and is rejected by your brain.



What exactly do you want to be investigated that could prove explosives? Wasn't the problem that all evidence was shipped to China?


Sure, and if a real investigation happens then there are going to be more roadblocks ahead than just that. But right now the biggest one is just the ignorant, apathetic and arrogant attitude of so many Americans that, "aww come on, we already know what happened" (not), "so let's just forget about it...." While at the same time innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying by the thousands because of that same day, coupled with years of twisted political rhetoric, drum-beating and flag-waving to go with it.

If you still deny that there were explosions, then there's nothing else I can do for you, I can't satisfy whatever it is you come here for, I'm sorry.

If you admit that there were explosions and think you already know what they were, or weren't, I'd love to see how you could possibly know such a thing.

And if you admit you don't know what caused them, but don't care, then maybe you haven't really woke up to the full implications of what something like scores of explosions inside those buildings could mean. Of all the things that could cause explosions, to have so many in so many different parts of all 3 buildings, there is one possibility that normally would obvious and would immediate stand out to the forefront of anyone's mind. But because of what I can only describe as conditioning, denial or straight-out brainwashing, you apparently want to re-categorize the most likely cause of so many explosions during a "terrorist" attack, as the least likely. And I can't understand or sympathize with that naive mentality.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
False choice fallacy noted. I didn't SEE your post.


Sometimes it helps to look...


Anyway, you're still talking nonsense. You actually believe that every single piece of furniture and other materials were pulverized? I'm sorry for you.


Did I say that either? No.

You're good at putting words in my mouth, especially things that totally contradict what I'm actually posting. I guess you have a lot of experience not listening.


No, it's like burning a log, versus a log that has been put through a wood chipper. Either way, they STILL produce the SAME heat energy.


Sure, but the log through the wood chipper still burns up much faster. It's the same problem as jet fuel. The jet fuel burned up within 10-15 minutes of the impact of either building, according to NIST's own estimations. Furniture that was pulverized more finely than a wood chipper could even accomplish wouldn't last long either in a fire.

Heat has to be steadily applied to steel to heat it to extreme temperatures. When a 700 C fire touches steel, the steel isn't instantly 700 C too. Look up the Cardington tests or even NIST's computer simulation calibration tests. They apply controlled megawatt burners, with immense amounts of heat energy equivalent to scores of wood stoves within a confined area, to steel for 30 minutes at a time or more to reach the temperatures they're trying to justify.

An outside, open-atmosphere fire fueled by pulverized combustibles isn't going to compare to a megawatt electric burner. And those pulverized combustibles aren't going to last for nearly as long either. Don't shoot from the hip whatever you can think of to try and shut me up, think about it. Trying to get steel red-hot in a fire fueled by sawdust is ridiculous to even imagine. You would just flare-up after flare-up every time you had to add more sawdust, like trying to fuel a fire using nothing but kindling or worse. This is the same kind of easily-burning stuff you use to build up a fire, but won't sustain one.


Actually, many pellet stoves use pellets of wood, and work quite well. I had one myself back home in MA.


Sure, I don't doubt it. I also don't doubt it still burns up quicker than an actual log and that the stove is probably specially designed just to make the best use of the more rapid burn.


Again, why do you expect to find whole desks in a collapse like this?


Because there has never been a "collapse" like these were you couldn't easily find identifiable remains besides structural steel and concrete dust, so the better question is why would you expect nearly everything to be rendered to dust. It's not like you're basing it off of anything else you have seen before. Instead you have just come to accept the explosiveness and total devastation of the "collapses" as expected and normal, when in reality they were anything but normal or with precedent.


What about all of the other hundreds of tons of items in the towers?


What about them? Are you finding them in the rubble too? It's rare that I see anything in GZ photos besides steel and concrete dust.


Did I mention cars as a prime source of fuel? No. Not now, not ever.


Good to know. So not cars, but completely pulverized combustibles, is the big fuel source?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Aparently you don't understand thermal expansion, or the NIST reports.


LOL, oh yes NISTS thermal expansion hypothesis. BTW that was their hypotheses for WTC 7's collapse, did we change the subject again?

Can you explain to me how 'thermal expansion' caused the building to mimic a controlled implosion demolition and land in its own footprint?

The whole reason you see the building collapse straight down during the first few seconds is because the inner structure is collapsing ahead of the outer walls, which then fall inwards creating the lean you see in the later stages of the collapse.


I suggest contacting a local fire protection engineer or other engineer with simmilar qualifications to explain it to you. No, a landscape engineer is not a good source.


I don't need a fire protection engineer to explain it to me thanx. What landscape engineer?

NIST made up the thermal expansion hypothesis there is NO precedence for it whatsoever.


What we found was that uncontrolled building fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7.



Definition of EXTRAORDINARY
1 a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary

www.merriam-webster.com...


This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires.

wtc.nist.gov...

Listen to what they're saying, it's a complete joke. Something they could only reproduce using computer models, not real world scenarios. If you were really a firefighter you would be laughing at them also.

This is the NIST simulation, now tell me it looks like the reality...



You can make a computer model do whatever you want it to, it will only give you what you put into it. A computer doesn't think for itself, it makes calculations based in what it is told.
edit on 1/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Have you heard of these things called "explosions" that were occurring all morning in all 3 of the skyscrapers that collapsed, that were never explained? Never explained as in, they are definitely evidence of something real that happened, but no one ever did ANY investigation into what caused them?


You want to know why nobody bothered to investigate that further?

It's simple really.


MANY many things go "BOOM" in a fire! I can name a few if you would like. There are at least a dozen.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Well that's all fine and good for you, right?


Yep.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There were explosions, and no one knows what they were, but I guess you'd say they could have been anything and that's your reason for not caring any more than that.


You're right, nobody really knows EXACTLY what they were. However, here is how the scientific process works.

Someone hears a boom.

Now, what might have caused the boom?
Here's a small list.

HVAC equipment including condensors and compressors.
Large oil-filled motors (Elevators and HAVC equipment)
Industrial cleaning supplies
CRT type monitors and TVs.
UPS equipment
Electrical transformers

Can we rule these out?

No, we cannot, as ALL of these items go boom in a fire, and would have been found in abundance in the WTC.

So, we will add explosives into the mix.

Can we rule them out?

Yes. No large booms heard at the same time by hundreds of people, all over lower Manhattan, and most likely, even into Hoboken.
No residue found by the hundreds of dogs that were there, that were trained to detect them.
No physical evidence of an explosive




Originally posted by bsbray11
But what are a few things explosions could be evidence of, especially so many in so many different areas of the buildings?


See above.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Hmmmmmm. What happened at the WTC in 1993?


Someone parked a huge ammonium nitrate bomb in the lower parking area of the WTC. Which, BTW, did absolutely NOTHING to the core columns.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Hmmmmmm. Nope, I guess you're right, there's absolutely no evidence or even reason to believe that explosives were used at the WTC.



Not when you cannot rule out the other dozens of things that go boom in a fire.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


well since you want to bring this down to a scale of belittling....mister electronic engineer and masters who says the buildings fell aproaching the speed of sound and the paint cans were a fine example of the physics involved as an example of asymetrical conditions...and i am who i say i am....you will only see the model after it get submittted for peer review....you see i do understand the basics of momentum and conservation of energy and also the term terminal velocity in relation to the fall of the towers...not they would never even approach terminal velocity as the hieght that they were would not allow then to...but they did approach freefall speeds and they should not have due to the resistance from the lower structure. Now you can go back to the paint can statement and it will stand up just fine...you could use ANY asymetrical structure to show the physics involved...soonce again you show you are not who you say you are if you do not understand that.
Also your still defending a paper that is being torn apart under peer review...it had to be rewritten because there were so many faults in it pertaining to the fall of the towers...and NIST report is being blasted for basing assumtions on this paper and they are even distancing themselves from the work...yet you, still try to defend it...and i just don't understand why....please tell people what your are trying to get out of doing this.

This is from Gordon Ross....The first error which Dr. Bazant has made is his assumption that all of the available
energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the
lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances.

Relates to the paint cans....you see i do have a clue as to what i am talking about....but i could post more...but i see there is no point as i say i am no longer going back and forth as i see with BS and ANOK they show thing very well...as do i ...but there is the same three people who contradict...stumble ..and fall on their own words in here and do not have on bit of decency to go look at what gets presented to them...they don't read the post's and they try childish tactics which only falls back down.

you see what fails in the Bazant is the basic law of physics....the conservation of energy....I would explain it yet again but why....Why would i chose to open up your intelectual brain....because you think they fell approaching the spped of sound.
edit on 023131p://f40Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join