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: 64
420
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.


Okay, you see a gigantic debris cloud of structural steel flying in all directions, and after that you find core columns and remains of trusses scattered all over Ground Zero and relatively little in the footprints, just like the perimeter columns and concrete dust.

What part of that doesn't make sense to you?


You took all that time to type up some irrelevant rant of tripe about how I'm not reasonable just to back up the ignorance of claiming you don't know how trusses and core columns landed all over Ground Zero, when you can plainly freaking see that enormous debris cloud flying everywhere. Once again, congratulations, you have outdone yourself.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:17 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...


OK I'll be kind and explain it to you nice and slowly. Maybe if you kept up with discussions instead of jumping in at random times you would understand.

WTC 7 fell into its footprint, implosion demolition. Post collapse photos prove the majority of the building landed in its own footprint.

The towers didn't land in their footprints, but ejected all their debris symmetrically 360 degrees around their footprints. Too tall to be implosion demolished. Too symmetrical to be natural collapse. Bazants model requires the building to have landed in its footprint to work.

Why do we need to mention squibs in this discussion? So you can attempt 'debunk' them?

This is why the 'debunkers' are lost and confused, you don't pay attention to details. You just wave away anything you either don't understand, or don't want to hear.

Sorry we're making this too hard for you.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, once again you have went on an imaginative fantasy, reading things into my posts not even remotely close to what I actually said.


But you do agree with it, else you would be spamming pictures.


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.


Didn't I just explain why there wouldn't be stacked floors in case any survived the fall?


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.


What observation? You have only shown pictures of perimeter walls being ejected. The rest is in your imagination. I need an explanation because I suffer from cognitive dissonance? What happened to I need an explanation because I want to know what happened? Ah but you already know what happened so what is the use of any explanation, evidence, reasoning, or just anything that could conflict with your current ideas. Nice piece of projection. People who claim to know the truth but need no explanation for it should be handled with caution.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Sorry, but my point is absolutely germane to the discussion. If I could be bothered I could find posts on this forum by you - with your usual wearied but absolutely morally certain tone - that insist the towers fell into their footprints.

You, and truthers like you, have now changed your mind about this but oddly enough remain convinced of your hypothesis. There are even amusing videos of Richard Gage insisting, during the same conversation, that the towers simultaneously ejected millions of tons of debris and also collapsed into their footprint. You may not enjoy being grouped with someone suffering from such cognitive dissonance, but when you ascribe to the same ideas, seem equally confused, and occupy the same fringe area of the internet, it's tough to tell you apart.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Absolutely incorrect. A mere couple of years ago it was common truther currency that the towers had also "fallen into their footprints" thus making them CDs. The ejection stuff is relatively new. The squibs are less relies upon now because they suit the ejection-type theories less well. Previously they were gospel.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11.

Most of the mass being blown outside of the buildings' footprints


Which I pointed out MUST have happened in ~.1 second and pass through the window area, meaning that they had to be small chunks. Thus making your religious-like belief that this happened to be impossible.


and unable to collapse onto the floors below, provides the best scenario for arresting a collapse


True. That would be an excellent way for the collapse to arrest. Too bad that there needs to be a suspension of logic to believe that the core column flew through the ext columns in 30' pieces, since that's how they're found on the ground.

Cool story though bro.


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).


False. There is only evidence that the debris is outside the footprint AFTER the collapse is over. There is zero evidence, nor reason to believe your claim.


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.


You're whining again, comparing a model to actual collapse dynamics.


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


The best case woud involve something as ridiculous as what you're proposing, namely something along the lines of rockets propelling the upper part into orbit.


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


Are you going to admit that where the core columns ended up after the collapse is over is NOT evidence of what they did DURING the collapse,since everything that you are claiming is supposedly happening in the dust cloud? Of course not. You WANT to believe that the 30' lengths core columns were blown through the ext columns intact.



And Bazant ignores the reality of the ejected mass


This delusion is YOUR reality only.

Rational thinkers want some reason to believe your assessment that everything got blown out between the ext columns.

You have provided nothing but where they ended up after the collapse is over.

And as I pointed out, your refusal to evaluate Matt Komorowski's statements about the wind in the stairwells, proves that you will not consider anything that proves you wrong.
edit on 31-1-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Okay, you see a gigantic debris cloud of structural steel flying in all directions


No. I see ext columns falling, and light weight aluminum cladding flying around.

You have absolutely zero photo evidence of heavy structural steel flying around. This has been pointed out to you several times. Your religious zeal prevents you from recognizing that there is nothing but your faith in "9/11 was an inside jerb" that allows you to believe this.


and after that you find core columns and remains of trusses scattered all over Ground Zero and relatively little in the footprints, just like the perimeter columns and concrete dust.


I'm quite sure that you have nothing to back this claim either. All you have is an aerial photo that shows zero detail, and a graph from FEMA that shows the radius of the debris, but does nothing to quantify the rubble.

This is enough for you to "believe".


What part of that doesn't make sense to you?


For one, you have no quantifiable data to how much was where, etc. And the fact that your claim requires that this debris needed to exit the footprint through the still standing ext columns.


You took all that time to type up some irrelevant rant of tripe about how I'm not reasonable just to back up the ignorance of claiming you don't know how trusses and core columns landed all over Ground Zero


I realize that pointing out to you that you are doing nothing more than taking a leap of faith when you claim that the core columns, trusses, etc are in the dust cloud is inconvenient to you, since there is zero photo evidence that you are correct.


when you can plainly freaking see that enormous debris cloud flying everywhere.


Dust does not equal that there is core columns and trusses, etc hidden in there.


Once again, congratulations, you have outdone yourself.


Not really.

Debunking your illogical claims, while time consuming, is quite trivial.
edit on 31-1-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Dont you know Joey that those silent paint on nano-thermites have such stupendous power to actually launch steel beams hundreds of feet when they burn! Or wait, was it thermate? Thats right thermate, it has such stupendous burning power that it can literally toss hundreds of tons of steel in every direction!


So I guess now we went back to high power demolition charges that go off silently and toss steel beams. Dont worry, in a minute it will back to thermate. Or thermite. Or nano-thermite. Or SUPER-nano-thermite that somehow melts and explodes with more energy and power than C4 but quieter than a mouse-fart!

I'm curious now how bsbray is going to explain how flying steel is going to equal thermate, thermite, super thermite, super nano-thermite, superdooper, nano-paint-on thermite that melts explodes.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Or SUPER-nano-thermite that somehow melts and explodes with more energy and power than C4 but quieter than a mouse-fart!


And stops reacting as soon as it comes in contact with steel, leaving a perfect thin unreacted layer behind as if it was regular paint.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, once again you have went on an imaginative fantasy, reading things into my posts not even remotely close to what I actually said.


But you do agree with it, else you would be spamming pictures.


Another response that starts with a sigh... No, I don't agree with what you said. And you're wrong. I already spammed photos of Ground Zero and if you already forgot that there weren't stacks of floors at the bottom of either building, then you don't need to be wasting everyone's time on here by pretending to pay attention.


Didn't I just explain why there wouldn't be stacked floors in case any survived the fall?


Not to me.


What observation? You have only shown pictures of perimeter walls being ejected.


Sorry, there is more than perimeter walls. There is also aluminum cladding, tons of concrete dust, and I have also seen core columns flying outwards in photos. If you want to believe a fairy tale that only perimeter columns were sent flying in every direction and everything else was in a massive pile at the bottom of each tower, you are free to believe that or any other fairy tale you want.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11.
Most of the mass being blown outside of the buildings' footprints


Which I pointed out MUST have happened in ~.1 second and pass through the window area, meaning that they had to be small chunks. Thus making your religious-like belief that this happened to be impossible.


This is just you talking to yourself. When you start talking real science and stop making numbers and facts up I'll be listening.




and unable to collapse onto the floors below, provides the best scenario for arresting a collapse


True. That would be an excellent way for the collapse to arrest. Too bad that there needs to be a suspension of logic to believe that the core column flew through the ext columns in 30' pieces, since that's how they're found on the ground.


The perimeter columns were about 30 feet tall too, and 10 feet wide, and they flew farther horizontally than the width of either tower. So much for vague insinuations that all the debris ejection clearly witnessed was impossible.




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).


False. There is only evidence that the debris is outside the footprint AFTER the collapse is over. There is zero evidence, nor reason to believe your claim.


Thanks for backing up these claims with absolutely nothing.




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.


You're whining again, comparing a model to actual collapse dynamics.


You said Bazant provided the scenario most likely to arrest the collapse in his model, and you were wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Telling you as much is not whining, it's trying to teach you something.



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


The best case woud involve something as ridiculous as what you're proposing, namely something along the lines of rockets propelling the upper part into orbit.


Too bad you can actually see heavy debris being ejected everywhere during the "collapses," in all the videos. Too bad what you are trying to claim never happened, was the most visible aspect of either "collapse."


Are you going to admit that where the core columns ended up after the collapse is over is NOT evidence of what they did DURING the collapse,since everything that you are claiming is supposedly happening in the dust cloud? Of course not. You WANT to believe that the 30' lengths core columns were blown through the ext columns intact.


Through the exterior columns intact?
You and PLB both really have to make stuff up and then claim it's what I'm saying? The rest of your arguments are that weak?

Show me where I ever said the exterior columns remained intact while everything else was being ejected outwards.


You spent the whole end of your post ranting about something I never even said.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You know what makes me really sad... watching people I love (my parents) watch this Nat Geo "documentary" as if it's the truth, and there's nothing more to the story than what's being presented. What makes me sadder...? I remember showing them Loose Change & a few other documentaries years ago when they were first being released, and at the time they seemed to be in total agreement with what those docs were saying. I can't figure out if they just decided to "go back to sleep" or if they have piss poor memories and just agree with anybody who sounds like they know what they're talking about.
It really hurts my soul but I've given up trying to explain or show them anything that's even remotely outside of the box. Even when I have factual evidence to back up things I wish to show them, I just get brushed off. (Like heaven forbid my opinions/beliefs aren't official story; and I'm not just talking about 911).
Just the other night I heard my mother say "I just agree with everything he's saying", when talking about the SOTU speech by Obama. I can't believe I came from such an easily herded sheep.
Great, I just succeeded in depressing myself



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This is just you talking to yourself. When you start talking real science and stop making numbers and facts up I'll be listening.


The speed of the collapse was ~.1 second/floor. Therefore, all the mass that you are claiming was ejected during the collapse must necessarily happen in this time for your delusion to be true. Otherwise, it will be trapped by whatever mass is coming down.



The perimeter columns were about 30 feet tall too, and 10 feet wide, and they flew farther horizontally than the width of either tower.


They didn't fly anywhere. They tipped out in large sheets after the floors collapsed and left them unsupported.


Thanks for backing up these claims with absolutely nothing.


My claim is that you have zero evidence to back YOUR claim of mass ejection. Your failure to provide even a single photo of this is proof that you have none. Therefore, my point is proven.


You said Bazant provided the scenario most likely to arrest the collapse in his model, and you were wrong.


Anything can be imagined by the delusional truther mind. That does mean that it has any basis in reality.


Too bad you can actually see heavy debris being ejected everywhere during the "collapses," in all the videos.


The rational see ext columns, aluminum cladding, and a lot of dust. The irrational truther mind notices that heavy material 'could' be hidden in the dust, and then jumps to the delusional belief that therefore, there is reason to believe that the trusses, etc MUST be in the dust. Nevermind that it isn't seen. The truth religion demands the suspension of logical thought processes.


Through the exterior columns intact?
You and PLB both really have to make stuff up and then claim it's what I'm saying? The rest of your arguments are that weak?


If it was a weak argument, you could point out how else the trusses, etc ended up getting outside the footprint during the collapse. The fact is, your delusion requires that this material exits through the ext columns, since the air and dust can be seen going out through the ext columns. I realize that this is an inconvenient fact for your cognitive dissonance to deal with, but there it is. Continue to deny.


Show me where I ever said the exterior columns remained intact while everything else was being ejected outwards.


This is where the strength of the rationalist argument shines. All the dust can be seen blowing through the ext columns before they buckle. This must happen at a rate of ~ .1second per floor, otherwise, the mass is trapped by the descending mass and rubble, and can't do as you claim.

This is inescapable. And it is impossible to rationalize. So, in a similar manner that you ignore Matt Komorowski's statement, you will not address it, and pretend that the logical process of how and by what timing the mass must be ejected for your delsuion to be true will go unexplored.

This is denial.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
If you can't tell that those Towers were blown to bits from top to bottom, you need to go back to First Grade and tell daddy to buy you an erector set or something. If those were pancake collapses at the incredible speed of .1 seconds per floor, my name is Aunt Jemima.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The speed of the collapse was ~.1 second/floor. Therefore, all the mass that you are claiming was ejected during the collapse must necessarily happen in this time for your delusion to be true. Otherwise, it will be trapped by whatever mass is coming down.


So now mass is being trapped by the collapse, and prevented from escaping? Can I see a photo of this? Because all I'm seeing is debris flying everywhere, and no structure anywhere nearby to contain it anymore.



The perimeter columns were about 30 feet tall too, and 10 feet wide, and they flew farther horizontally than the width of either tower.


They didn't fly anywhere. They tipped out in large sheets after the floors collapsed and left them unsupported.


Not hardly.









Who calls that "tipping out in large sheets," when they're following projectile arcs through open air, and nothing attached below or underneath them?



Thanks for backing up these claims with absolutely nothing.


My claim is that you have zero evidence to back YOUR claim of mass ejection. Your failure to provide even a single photo of this is proof that you have none. Therefore, my point is proven.


So what do you think that enormous dust cloud, with all the steel and tons of concrete dust, is? Is it... mass?


You said "There is only evidence that the debris is outside the footprint AFTER the collapse is over."

What evidence are you talking about? There is heavy structural debris flying everywhere, after the collapse it's laying in a huge radius that included a 20+ ton section of perimeter columns about 600 ft away laterally on the Winter Garden, and other structural debris went even farther than that. And the debris that hit the Winter Garden was photographed flying towards it, nothing else attached to it, just like it was found inside the building. Have you never seen this information before or do you just ignore it every time it's brought to your attention?



You said Bazant provided the scenario most likely to arrest the collapse in his model, and you were wrong.


Anything can be imagined by the delusional truther mind. That does mean that it has any basis in reality.


Considering I'm not the one who's denying what is plainly visible in every collapse video, I think your accusations are misplaced. There was heavy structural debris flying everywhere. People figured that out as it was happening and ran from it for blocks, but you still haven't noticed it.



Too bad you can actually see heavy debris being ejected everywhere during the "collapses," in all the videos.


The rational see ext columns, aluminum cladding, and a lot of dust. The irrational truther mind notices that heavy material 'could' be hidden in the dust, and then jumps to the delusional belief that therefore, there is reason to believe that the trusses, etc MUST be in the dust. Nevermind that it isn't seen. The truth religion demands the suspension of logical thought processes.




See all the core columns laying all over the place? And whenever you're ready to acknowledge them, the enormous debris clouds flying in all directions.

And you're saying all the debris actually landed inside the footprints and then relocated outside of them how, exactly?


If it was a weak argument, you could point out how else the trusses, etc ended up getting outside the footprint during the collapse. The fact is, your delusion requires that this material exits through the ext columns, since the air and dust can be seen going out through the ext columns. I realize that this is an inconvenient fact for your cognitive dissonance to deal with, but there it is. Continue to deny.


I asked you to show where I said the core columns were ever flying between perimeter columns. Instead of showing me where (because I never said it, you just made it up), you just repeat it again. Learn to read what I type, and keep your own ideas separate from what I'm saying.



Show me where I ever said the exterior columns remained intact while everything else was being ejected outwards.


This is where the strength of the rationalist argument shines. All the dust can be seen blowing through the ext columns before they buckle. This must happen at a rate of ~ .1second per floor, otherwise, the mass is trapped by the descending mass and rubble, and can't do as you claim.

This is inescapable.


Or just more glorious nonsense. What says the "descending mass" is acting like a vacuum cleaner and taking all its debris along with it as it descends? You're trying to make the towers out as air-tight containers apparently capable of intelligent discretion of what it lets in and out, just like when you try to explain all the expulsions from the building. If you pay attention, debris is flying away from the towers, in all directions, and the dust is following all of it. There is no problem with debris escaping seen anywhere in the collapse videos.


So, in a similar manner that you ignore Matt Komorowski's statement, you will not address it, and pretend that the logical process of how and by what timing the mass must be ejected for your delsuion to be true will go unexplored.

This is denial.


I wonder why you keep obsessing over a single cherry-picked testimony when several were used in that article, and the discrepancies between them was even explained in it.
edit on 1-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Another response that starts with a sigh... No, I don't agree with what you said. And you're wrong. I already spammed photos of Ground Zero and if you already forgot that there weren't stacks of floors at the bottom of either building, then you don't need to be wasting everyone's time on here by pretending to pay attention.


So you have 0 photos that show trusses and core columns being ejected which were made during collapse. In other words, you agree to what I say.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any floor truss or core column was ejected outside the footprint during collapse. You don't even have any source that estimates what portion of the floor trusses and core columns was outside the footprint after collapse. All we have is your "expert" opinion.



Not to me.


Maybe you should start reading what I write then. I nowhere claim there were stacked floors.


Sorry, there is more than perimeter walls. There is also aluminum cladding, tons of concrete dust, and I have also seen core columns flying outwards in photos. If you want to believe a fairy tale that only perimeter columns were sent flying in every direction and everything else was in a massive pile at the bottom of each tower, you are free to believe that or any other fairy tale you want.


Show those images with core columns being ejected. And show those trusses while you are at it. And also explain what magical force ejected nearly all the columns and trusses.

I find it acceptable that some trusses may have been ejected. Logic dictates that the majority of floors falls more or less in its footprint, probably in a Gaussian like distribution of debris, with the highest concentration in the center. But what is the use of logic if there is blind faith.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Wait, can ANYONE point out any trusses being ejected? This is the first I ever heard of ANYONE mentioning ANY trusses being ejected by the collapse in the last nine and a half years. Or core columns? The only time I ever see any core columns is after the floors collapsed, leaving the spire standing. Not a single photo/video shows any trusses or core columns being ejected. That is a flat out lie that it happened.

And again, how the heck can thermite throw core columns and trusses???????? Oh my lord, the truthers are really digging themselves in a deep hole with this.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I don't understand. How do you guys think the trusses, floor pans etc., landed outside of the footprint if they weren't being ejected by the collapse mechanism.

Did they wait until the collapse was over?

It's funny you argue that WTC 7 didn't land in its footprint and the towers did. Completely opposite to reality in order to fit your sad, weak OS.

But of course you have to believe this in order to support the OS and Bazants failed paper.

In its own footprint...



Not in its own footprint...



In its own footprint...



Not in its own footprint...



In its own footprint...



Not in its own footprint...


edit on 2/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't understand.


Question is why though. When a pile of debris falls on the ground, do you think it will stay in the exact same shape it had during the fall or will it spread out over a larger area? And do you think the hight from which it fell influences how much it will spread out? You can try this at home.

So what made almost all of the debris (floor trusses, core columns) eject during collapse according to you? Or do you disagree with that?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
When a pile of debris falls on the ground, do you think it will stay in the exact same shape it had during the fall or will it spread out over a larger area?


You have to come to grips with what is realistic and what is not. There was a 20+ ton section of perimeter columns over 500 feet away from the base of WTC1 on the Winter Garden, and that wasn't an isolated incident by any means.

How does a multi-ton section of steel move so far after it hits the ground? In this case (the Winter Garden impact), people even photographed the same perimeter column sections flying through the air freely before they hit that building. And yet you still can't accept that debris was ejected in such a way?



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join