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: 63
420
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That because I make a distinction between "dust" and "debris". Somehow you, together with your fellow superhuman truthers gang, can see and identify the majority of the debris. Me with my normal human eyes can't.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 









It's concrete dust, steel, and aluminum paneling, being hurled in all directions, tons and tons of it.


You can also get a sense of the volume of the debris cloud:



Unless you think inside the debris cloud it was all empty and clear, or there's some other difference between the outside and inside of the debris cloud, you know all that volume you can identify from the outside corresponds to debris flying around just like you are seeing on the outside of the debris cloud.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I can only see the outer structure. Maybe you can use your superhuman vision to outline where the floor trusses and core columns are on those images.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I can only see the outer structure. Maybe you can use your superhuman vision to outline where the floor trusses and core columns are on those images.


There are many pictures and links at this thread to illustrate for you, any many pictures elsewhere. Bsbray has been more than good enough to reiterate some of them just for you, I don't feel quite so charitable at the moment, so I suggest you go and look for yourself. You could try and think of a few keywords to help you, put them in the big search box and press the "Go" button. It's called self-help.
edit on 30-1-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So pointing out that his model has nothing to do with reality is "whining." Alright.




It sure is.

Bazant's model is a model, not an attempt to model the actual dynamics of the collapse. Most people realize this, since it's stated in his paper.

Therefore, whining about how he fit his model - which as stated, doesn't really try to model the actual collapse - is indeed whining about insignificant items when examiing the actual dynamics.

I realize that you don't understand this, so carry on whining about the amount of debris ejection.

What percentage of the debris did you claim is ejected during the propagation again? Is 75% about right?

So you're saying that 75% of the weight from the core columns, elevator equipment, HVAC equipment, steel floor pans, truss rods, concrete, drywall, office equipment, etc...... flew out the windows, obscured by the dust in less than .10 second........




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
So pointing out that his model has nothing to do with reality is "whining." Alright.



It sure is.

Bazant's model is a model, not an attempt to model the actual dynamics of the collapse. Most people realize this, since it's stated in his paper.


Then you should just stop bringing it up since it proves nothing.

Then you wouldn't have to read me "whining" about how you can never bring anything conclusive or even relevant to the discussion. K?


What percentage of the debris did you claim is ejected during the propagation again? Is 75% about right?


Bazant says in his papers the figure would be higher than that, looking at photos of debris at Ground Zero, specifically in the footprints of the towers as compared to what isn't in them any longer. He just then goes on to say he can't use those figures anyway because it invalidates his model, etc.


So you're saying that 75% of the weight from the core columns, elevator equipment, HVAC equipment, steel floor pans, truss rods, concrete, drywall, office equipment, etc...... flew out the windows, obscured by the dust in less than .10 second........



Yeah, and what's so hilarious is you've been staring at it already for 10 years and still can't comprehend what you are looking at.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can only see the outer structure. Maybe you can use your superhuman vision to outline where the floor trusses and core columns are on those images.


Why is it significant that you be able to make out numbers of trusses and core columns?

Do you think they were not ejected outside of the footprints? Because they were, and there are photos of leaving laying all over Ground Zero after the fact. Unless you're still trying to argue all these things stayed within the footprint until hitting the ground, then somehow bounced out 30 + meters, etc.

What you see is exactly what you would expect when everything is being forcefully thrown out from the center of the buildings. Exterior columns are on the outside, along with dust and aluminum cladding, and most everything else is deeper inside the debris cloud. The debris cloud was massive and I showed you photos demonstrating its volume above. It's volume on a single floor-sized cross section would have been larger than an intact floor, expanding out in all directions.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Bazant's model is a model, not an attempt to model the actual dynamics of the collapse. Most people realize this, since it's stated in his paper.

Therefore, whining about how he fit his model - which as stated, doesn't really try to model the actual collapse - is indeed whining about insignificant items when examiing the actual dynamics.


Do you even realise what you just said?

Doesn't really try to model the actual collapse? So what is the point then?

You are using a paper to argue that the WTC collapses were as the OS claims that you know doesn't model the actual collapses?

So what is it supposed to model then? Obviously nothing to do with reality huh?

The 'debunker movement' get's more ridiculous with their claims and fantasies...

Priceless!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
A few years ago it was all about the squibs and the buildings falling into their footprints, which proved they were CDs.

Now they apparently didn't fall into their footprints and the squibs are hardly mentioned. I can't keep up with you guys, you change the story so often. But weirdly your conclusion doesn't alter. Almost as though you'd made your mind up about that first...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Doesn't really try to model the actual collapse?


Nope.


So what is the point then?



Didn't you read it for comprehension?

He very clearly lays out the best scenario for collapse arrest, but it collapses to the ground anyways.

IOW, it proves that no CD is necessary to explain why it collapses. Very simple.

But you still haven't got that part right. After 9 1/2 yrs.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you agree that you can't see any floor trusses on the photos, and you also can not determine if there were or were not any stacked floors among the falling debris, just like me. As for the "then somehow bounced out 30 + meters", according to you the floors "somehow almost all ejected out 30 + meters". You haven't even made an attempt to give a plausible explanation. All you come with is photos showing outer columns being ejected.
edit on 30-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


The cliché "go look for yourself". I take that as a "no there indeed is no image showing floor trusses being ejected during collapse", else you would have just posted it.
edit on 30-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then you should just stop bringing it up since it proves nothing.


False. The Bazant papers all prove that no form of CD is necessary for the progressive collapse to happen.


Then you wouldn't have to read me "whining" about how you can never bring anything conclusive or even relevant to the discussion. K?


Bazant's papers are conclusive on the above point. You will nevertheless continue to whine.


Yeah, and what's so hilarious is you've been staring at it already for 10 years and still can't comprehend what you are looking at.


Project much?

You have zero way to even begin to give evidence of your claim.

What you're saying is that for every failed level of the collapse, which happened at about .1 second per floor, that a majority of the mass flew out the windows. This is an unavoidable fact, since in all available videos that I've seen, the air is being forced out through where the windows were, while the ext columns are still standing.

So your theory necessitates that all this debris is blown into small enough chunks to fit through a roughly 3' x 6' space. And at the same time it requires that this presumably explosively (?) broken up debris exit these windows, yet DON'T have the momentum to continue to to blow into all the surrounding buildings. Which of course would defy physics.

Not only that, but the huge pieces seen all over the site after the collapse proves that this couldn't have happened. Yet you will continue to whine about "how else could it have been spread all over unless it went through the windows!!!"

Pure nonsense.


Thank you for providing a perfect example tolurkers about how the typical truther ignores logic when making claims.


edit on 30-1-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

The cliché "go look for yourself". I take that as a "no there indeed is no image showing floor trusses being ejected during collapse", else you would have just posted it.


Of course there's nothing to back their claims.

It requires a religious like belief from truthers in order for them to makes these claims and believe them, and to believe that normal, sane, logical people will be swayed by their claims.

This is why "da truth" can be likened to a cult, or a religion.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why is it significant that you be able to make out numbers of trusses and core columns?




Maybe it's because some people like to see some sort of evidence that this is actually happening.

You would like everyone to take it on faith that your owm personal evaluation of what must be happening to be true.

This requires a suspension of skepticism and critical thought, since as shown, you have zero photo evidence of this to be true. There are several ways that debris can end up spread on the ground that you have not examined. You will not do this, nor do an honest evaluation of the likelihood of each possibility.

Most would find this hard to do with you, since you have repeatedly ignored earlier in this thread the statements from Matt Komorowski that the wind in the stairwell lifted him off his feet and blew him DOWN. Despite this statement, also made in an interview with Stone Phillips, and in the presence of a few of the other survivors, where they don't disagree with his statement...... you will not even examine your belief that the wind blew UP the stariwell.

This makes your truther beliefs a religion to you, and to most here also, I suspect. There is as much reason to believe your claims as there is to believe in God. All it takes is faith, baby!!!




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
A few years ago it was all about the squibs and the buildings falling into their footprints, which proved they were CDs.

Now they apparently didn't fall into their footprints and the squibs are hardly mentioned. I can't keep up with you guys, you change the story so often. But weirdly your conclusion doesn't alter. Almost as though you'd made your mind up about that first...


Neither does the NIST's conclusion, except for WTC7 of course. So I take it your buying not selling, do you want fries and mayo with it?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
A few years ago it was all about the squibs and the buildings falling into their footprints, which proved they were CDs.

Now they apparently didn't fall into their footprints and the squibs are hardly mentioned. I can't keep up with you guys, you change the story so often. But weirdly your conclusion doesn't alter. Almost as though you'd made your mind up about that first...


I don't think you ever actually even try to keep up with what we say. That's why you always use words like "truthers" to generalize whatever distortion you claim we're all saying today.

That and the very small amount of attention span required for "okay, now what can I say that sounds cool to trash talk this dude in response?", that lately for you especially hasn't even been remotely related to what anyone is talking about.

I didn't have any reason to question what happened on 9/11 until a few years after it over. In other words, no, I didn't already have my mind made up. The opposite. What a shock that the guy who can't stay on topic and overuses generalizations, and never pays attention to details, would have jumped to the wrong conclusion.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by smurfy
 


The cliché "go look for yourself". I take that as a "no there indeed is no image showing floor trusses being ejected during collapse", else you would have just posted it.
edit on 30-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


No, it means the same as I said to Shadytricks, contribute with something other than a whinge.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
He very clearly lays out the best scenario for collapse arrest, but it collapses to the ground anyways.

IOW, it proves that no CD is necessary to explain why it collapses. Very simple.

But you still haven't got that part right. After 9 1/2 yrs.



Had to let out a sigh before posting this.

9 1/2 years in which you could have at least learned basic physics.

Most of the mass being blown outside of the buildings' footprints and unable to collapse onto the floors below, provides the best scenario for arresting a collapse, and is what agrees with the actual evidence (ie most of the mass of each tower was forcefully displaced to outside of the buildings' footprints during collapse).

Bazant ignored this, and did not account for the ejected mass, but pretended it all stayed in place instead, so no, Bazant was NOT offering the best scenario for arresting a collapse.


Are you wrong, every time you claim Bazant assumed the best case for stopping the collapse? Yes.

Are you going to admit it, or do you even know better? No, and I'd have to guess not.


But if you sit and actually think about the words someone, somewhere is taking the time to explain to you, losing mass over the sides of the building is also losing potential energy that could have hit the floors below. And Bazant ignores the reality of the ejected mass to keep it all inside the building, and give him extra theoretical energy that in reality did not exist. Just meditate on that for maybe 10 minutes or so and see if anything sinks in.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you agree that you can't see any floor trusses on the photos, and you also can not determine if there were or were not any stacked floors among the falling debris, just like me.


No, once again you have went on an imaginative fantasy, reading things into my posts not even remotely close to what I actually said.

You can look at the footprint of each tower after its "collapse" and see plainly there are no stacks of floors there. In WTC1's case an intact piece of the core structure is actually sticking up in plain sight, testifying to how little debris actually did land on the ground there. Also the perimeter columns on the ground level were also intact, and possibly the ground floor itself.

And to say just because you don't see any trusses in the debris cloud, suggests anything other than your simple inability to see them there, then you're reaching again. They were found on the ground, completely and utterly twisted up and destroyed into tiny pieces, laying all over Ground Zero. Not stacked up on top of each other at the base of each tower.


As for the "then somehow bounced out 30 + meters", according to you the floors "somehow almost all ejected out 30 + meters". You haven't even made an attempt to give a plausible explanation.


Observations do not need explanations, to remain valid observations. Observations and explanations are not the same thing. This is not the first time I've tried to explain this to you but it's not going through. Please separate your fallacious assertion that I have to have an explanation in order to be able to see the massive debris cloud, that shows tons and tons of structural steel being thrown out in all directions, and landing pretty much everywhere except the footprints.

You need an explanation because you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. I'm not experiencing that same cognitive dissonance because I already know that I don't know what happened to the towers, but the observations speak for themselves and it was obviously not what was in the NIST report. An observation is not an explanation. But an observation can definitely contradict an explanation. And that's really what is bothering you. Learn to deal with it, please.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join