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: 65
420
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.


No, I am not saying that. I'm not even looking through all the collapse photos to try to differentiate perimeter columns from trusses and core columns and aluminum panels. As small as they are in the photos they are nearly indistinguishable in the first place, and since you are looking at the outer surface of the debris cloud you're going to see mostly debris that was oriented towards the outside of the building.

You can't see inside the debris cloud to tell me what wasn't there. There were core columns and trusses laying all over Ground Zero after the "collapses." And since all that debris was flying through the air, it's only logical to assume that's how the core columns and trusses got there. I'm still waiting for a more reasonable theory from you. Apparently you somehow think the mass must have hit the ground and then bounced out somehow, just so Bazant's model appears slightly more relevant to reality, or just to antagonize me, or whatever else the perverse motive counter to common sense is.


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.


No one is calling me an expert, so why you are putting the word in quotes is beyond me except that you must be lying and trying to put words in my mouth for the umpteenth time. All you have to do is look at photos of the footprints and you immediately see what isn't there. This is simple algebra. You have the total building before "collapse," and you have what's left over there afterward. The amount that's missing, is what was thrown all over the place, as every video shows, as FEMA documented, etc. You have to come up with some extra theory of how the mass actually landed in the footprints but then somehow redistributed hundreds of feet away, which no one saw and is based on nothing but your determination to be right in an internet argument no matter what.


Logic dictates that the majority of floors falls more or less in its footprint


How in the hell does "logic dictate" this when you're making it up just to bolster another bunch of theories that would automatically be wrong otherwise?

You already know how much fell in the footprints of either tower. This isn't a great mystery. What is a great mystery is how you can look at what's in the footprint of either tower, and then claim the majority of both towers fell there and then flew out everywhere afterward. I'm still not seeing what you're basing that assumption on, besides your inability to ever be wrong and so you're just making up whatever you have to.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?


How does that happen? Hmm well how tall were those towers? Let's start there. 1360ft? Hmm ok, well lets see, 500ft from the base, thats about half the height. Now lets recall how the exterior columns peeled away in large section, and forced away like a single peel of a banana, from the force of the large avalanche of debris from above. There is your force, plus gravity, and the columns tilting over and away from the center (like an arrow splitting an arrow) and that is how columns managed to land 500ft away. No real mystery there, just a little understanding of physics.

But if you are going the "CD" route, please explain how (super/nano/militarygrade/paint-on)-thermite/ate can do something like physically launch steel that far. Or are you going back to high power explosives, which in that case, give us a rough idea of just how much high power explosive would have been needed and placed where exactly to be capable to launch steel that far. Hey, you think its somehow a "smoking gun" of sorts that exterior columns were found that far away, so lets hear some realistic ways to explain how it would have worked.
edit on 2/2/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


We are not talking perimeter columns here. For the perimeter columns to eject there is a very logical mechanism. They are pushed out by the falling debris pile and can gain additional velocity as result of tension release when the joints fail.

No, you claim that the floors and core columns also ejected. Sure, some of the debris from the floors will also be pushed out, but you claim that virtually everything ejected. You claim there is an open space above the point of collapse. You claim there is no debris pile at all to make the collapse progress. I can't think of any logical mechanism for that, not even any kind of explosives. Your idea just doesn't make any sense.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You assume that nearly all of the floors and core ejected during collapse. There is both no evidence nor any logical mechanism. You don't know how much fell outside during collapse, you don't know how much fell outside after collapse, you don't know how much fell in the basement, you don't even know how much of the floors and core was outside the footprint after the collapse. You just make a guesstimate of "all over the place".

The reason you make this assumption is so that a natural collapse becomes impossible. And you want a natural collapse to be impossible because you want to believe it was CD. You accuse me that I want a certain idea to be true so that a collapse without explosives is possible. But don't you think you are projecting here? I openly admit I both can't see nor don't know what happened exactly. I just say it is plausible that there was a large enough debris pile for the collapse to progress. You on the other hand claim you know this wasn't the case, but you both fail to give an explanation or evidence.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?


How does that happen? Hmm well how tall were those towers? Let's start there. 1360ft? Hmm ok, well lets see, 500ft from the base, thats about half the height. Now lets recall how the exterior columns peeled away in large section, and forced away like a single peel of a banana, from the force of the large avalanche of debris from above. There is your force, plus gravity, and the columns tilting over and away from the center (like an arrow splitting an arrow) and that is how columns managed to land 500ft away. No real mystery there, just a little understanding of physics.




Yep.

the911forum.freeforums.org... garden&start=15

"The winter garden is not 600 feet from the west facade of the north tower. The east edge of the Winter Garden is 430 feet to the west of the North Tower. The claim of 600 feet is false.

The material which landed on and up to the Winter Garden landed there when the facade peeled away, broke apart into massive assemblies and toppled over. It was not eject. Chandler is flat out wrong."


the911forum.freeforums.org... garden#p10560

"If you simply analyze the movement of the large assembly coming off the west facade of the north tower seen in video Chandler uses you can see that this is about 18 panels.... I am guessing it is 9 stories high (3 panels) by 8 wide making it 80' x 108" and since it looks like it has an even edge it might start at the the bottom or the top of the mechanical floors where the facades had clean breaks. Aside from the fact that this weighed well over 100 tons we can observe that in few seconds it is visible it goes from almost vertical to horizontal.

So what sort of explosives could:

remove 18 panels from the facade without breaking them apart
impart more horizontal moment at the top so that they tilted to horizontal in a few seconds

If the top of 108' assemble moved to horizontal in free fall it would be moving at about 30 mph... do the math.

So where did this assembly land? I bet it landed over at the winter garden where you can see what looks like the assembly broken up of about 9 stories with the furthest (top most) panel being at 430 feet.

Anyway you do the calculations, depending on from what height the assembly came... you can't get it moving faster than 37 mph. Why would a lower assembly be "ejected" further than a higher one?

If you do the calculations faster speeds would land the panels beyond the WFC. Draw the site to scale and see what the distances are. I've done it and it's 430 feet. Even if the landing distance is off +/- 10% the speeds are not 50 or 70 mph as Chandler and others state. THAT defies physics.

But the real giveaway is that these came off as a unit and behave just as expected if they are toppling over. And that assembly is not the only one.... you can see several others behave the same."


PHOTO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...

A bunch of photos of the west side of one:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...


Also, there's a whole lot of photos at that site for BSBRAY to provide evidence that indeed, debris was "scattered all over the place during the collapse" ; by combing through their photos and pointing out the trusses, etc that he's claimed to have seen.

This of course will not happen. A bare assertion is all he's got. An honest evaluation would conflict with his irreducible delusion, andmust be avoided.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
How does that happen? Hmm well how tall were those towers? Let's start there. 1360ft? Hmm ok, well lets see, 500ft from the base, thats about half the height. Now lets recall how the exterior columns peeled away in large section, and forced away like a single peel of a banana, from the force of the large avalanche of debris from above. There is your force


This is pure fantasy. The debris that hit the Winter Garden was isolated and not part of a giant ladder of perimeter columns that tilted over onto it.




Isolated holes in the building.



Isolated group of perimeter columns on the floor inside the structure.




Here is debris following projectile arcs, which is a curve inconsistent with tilting. Notice there is nothing continuing from the bottom of the debris that is flying out.

And more evidence of heavy structural debris being forcefully ejected:




Go ahead and try again.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
We are not talking perimeter columns here.


Maybe you don't want to, but I'm talking about everything in the towers that had mass.


For the perimeter columns to eject there is a very logical mechanism. They are pushed out by the falling debris pile and can gain additional velocity as result of tension release when the joints fail.


Joints failing does not create additional energy in the system, it uses energy. Joints failing are not a machine that does useful work, even in terms of just falling down, the fact that it is broken adds nothing. And for perimeter columns to be ejected 600 + ft and weigh multiple tons, is not a logical mechanism. Logic requires you do something other than just run your mouth.


I can't think of any logical mechanism for that, not even any kind of explosives. Your idea just doesn't make any sense.


No, the actual destruction of the buildings does not make sense to you. What is plainly observable obviously happened. The majority of the structural debris sent flying in every direction is observable, both during and especially after their explosive 'collapses.' It happened. What doesn't make sense is what you think caused the towers to come down.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You assume that nearly all of the floors and core ejected during collapse. There is both no evidence nor any logical mechanism.


You're wrong. The fact that both of those kinds of structural members were laying all over Ground Zero, is evidence they were ejected from the "collapses." Otherwise they would still be sitting in the footprint, and they obviously all are not.


You don't know how much fell outside during collapse, you don't know how much fell outside after collapse, you don't know how much fell in the basement, you don't even know how much of the floors and core was outside the footprint after the collapse. You just make a guesstimate of "all over the place".


1) I look at how much debris is left in the footprints of either building (ie not much, but don't take my word for it, look yourself).

2) The tower structure that is missing from either footprint (ie what was originally standing there, but now isn't anymore) represents what was ejected from the collapse. That's clearly the majority of the total building mass in both cases, and even Bazant admits this.

3) The core and perimeter structures were intact at ground level, and there is no evidence that the majority of the missing debris crammed down below them where you can't see.


The only problem is that you didn't come here to discuss facts, you came here to preach over them.

You keep wanting me to explain how this is possible but these are observations and not explanations. There is nothing you can do about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This of course will not happen. A bare assertion is all he's got. An honest evaluation would conflict with his irreducible delusion, andmust be avoided.


You don't even know what the subject is half the time "Joey."

So if the trusses and core columns aren't scattered all over Ground Zero, then where else are you seeing them all?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your guessing is worthless to me. The photos and videos only show what is on the surface, and most are not very detailed, making it impossible to tell what is what. And you somehow exactly know what happened. You are never going to convince anyone practicing critical thinking with this opinion of yours.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It feels like I have to explain every physical concept to you, I kind of wonder if you have ever been outside. But I have better things to do so alas.

So what mechanism for ejecting debris do you propose?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


If you can't tell 'what is what' then you shouldn't be here arguing 'what is what'.

How many more times are you going to admit how clueless you are?

Should I point them out?

You do realise that the NIST report was based on those 'impossible to see what is what' photo's and videos right?

Too funny...
edit on 2/2/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Did you ever make a contribution in this thread with content or extra insight? I really wonder what the point of your posts are except for a pathetic attempt to insult. Why don't you show the ejecting trusses and columns? Why don't you outline the trusses and core columns and determine how much of it we can actually see outside the footprint?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually, ANOK brings up a good point.

All the photos that have been presented in this thread are surely among those that Bazant used to create his hypothesis (unless he has access to some sort of secret data that the world is unaware of). You have argued over and over that it's literally impossible to tell what is what in these photos, and that BS and others could not possibly be correct in what they claim to see.

How exactly do you justify Bazant? How exactly do you suppose he deduced what happened? Considering the weight of the 9/11 attacks, you would think that the official record that is the NIST report would not use words like "assume". But that's just my humble opinion.

What if someone or some company was hired to do a more thorough investigation using the same data Bazant used, but came up with a completely different result and published ALL their data so that the rest of the world could emulate it, and get the same result (as in the scientific method) instead of keeping it secret (as NIST did)? Would you simply write it off and disagree with it, or would you consider it just as you do the NIST report?

Just curious.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


This is a question that truthers seem to enjoy asking. It essentially amounts to: "If it was proved that the towers were CD'd, what would you do?"

And the answer is that obviously one would endorse the conclusion, assuming one agreed with the method.

But what interests me is that implicit in the question is the notion that it has not yet been proved. Despite protestations to the contrary.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Bazant was not out to prove actual observation, he points that out in his paper. If you use photographic evidence to prove your point, you must be able to identify the claimed phenomena in the photo. I nowhere say that photographic evidence is useless, I just point out that the photographic evidence provided by Bsbray does not prove his point. There is no photo showing core columns or floor parts being ejected, and it is impossible to determine the debris distribution by photos of the surface of the debris, without knowing what is underground. Additionally it is very hard to identify what you are looking at in the first place as result of limited resolution. This is the very point ANOK attacked me on. But did you realize what Bsbray said in the post I reacted to? Lets take a look:


Originally posted by bsbray11
As small as they are in the photos they are nearly indistinguishable in the first place/[


I more or less repeated what Bsbray said, and I am called all kind of things for it. What ANOK did was quote mining, he quotes me out of context by leaving certain relevant parts out, and tried to discredit my position that way. Only weak minded people fall for that tactic, I hope you are not among them.

So there is no photographic evidence for Bsbrays claims, add to that the fact that he does not come with any explanation why what he claims could actually have happened, and you end up with a very weak hypothesis.

As for your last paragraph, if a new investigation was done that proves CD, I would of course accept it. The only reason I reject the CD hypothesis is because it is extremely unlikely, there is no proof and there is a very reasonable alternative explanation. I don't have a problem with accepting that a government is morally capable of such an act. I do have a problem with accepting that a government, or any other organization, is competent enough to perform such an act.

edit on 3-2-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Bazant was not out to prove actual observation, he points that out in his paper.


This is one of the main points which got me interested in 9/11 in the first place. I feel that if they (NIST) were not able to 110% determine how and why these towers fell, they failed. Planes or not, fires or not, they were not able to successfully model the collapses. To me, that is a red flag.


I nowhere say that photographic evidence is useless, I just point out that the photographic evidence provided by Bsbray does not prove his point.


You haven't said it is useless, I know, but that wasn't really my point. In any case, you may not think his photos prove his point, but I do, and I'm sure others do as well. Most of these things seem to be in the "eye of the beholder" really.


There is no photo showing core columns or floor parts being ejected, and it is impossible to determine the debris distribution by photos of the surface of the debris, without knowing what is underground.


That may be so. I haven't seen every photo, so I can't agree or disagree. I can say though, that if core columns were destroyed by any means other than the collapse itself, it seems that they would not be flying outward past the outer columns plus everything else that would be between them and the outskirts of the debris. I imagine they would be contained in the middle of everything. Floor parts? You got me there.


I more or less repeated what Bsbray said, and I am called all kind of things for it. What ANOK did was quote mining, he quotes me out of context by leaving certain relevant parts out, and tried to discredit my position that way. Only weak minded people fall for that tactic, I hope you are not among them.


I haven't called you anything. And to be honest, what ANOK posted, and what I posted previously is something that I've been thinking about for a while now. I've been following this thread since ~ page 20 anways, so know and understand what's been said. I am certainly not weak minded.


So there is no photographic evidence for Bsbrays claims, add to that the fact that he does not come with any explanation why what he claims could actually have happened, and you end up with a very weak hypothesis.


That is your opinion. I think BS has explained his/her position very clearly, and it's not necessarily BS's responsibility to prove anything. That statement is usually taken as a cop-out, which is asinine, but whatever. If you disagree with the explanations for the data BS provides, then that is on you. I don't really think it's necessary to continue the conversation if, after 60+ pages, neither "side" is making progress. BS isn't convincing you of anything, and you don't appear to be conving BS of anything, and I'm fairly aware of the history with Pteridine and BS. That conversation will never go anywhere.


As for your last paragraph, if a new investigation was done that proves CD, I would of course accept it. The only reason I reject the CD hypothesis is because it is extremely unlikely, there is no proof and there is a very reasonable alternative explanation. I don't have a problem with accepting that a government is morally capable of such an act. I do have a problem with accepting that a government, or any other organization, is competent enough to perform such an act.


Fair enough.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Just want to mention that my father is a petroleum engineer and i was talking about thermite (he had no idea why), he came into the room and mentioned its used in his industry to cut steel.

no prompting at all; he just knows that.

so this 'thermite can't cut steel' stuff is rubbish.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This is a question that truthers seem to enjoy asking. It essentially amounts to: "If it was proved that the towers were CD'd, what would you do?"


I'm not a "Truther". That word gets thrown around here like an insult and a way to group everyone who doesnt agree with the OS into one big circus. Labeling someone for their beliefs is pathetic. I ask that question because it's valid. What WOULD you do? Personally, I'd stay the crap out of the US.


And the answer is that obviously one would endorse the conclusion, assuming one agreed with the method.


Makes sense to me.


But what interests me is that implicit in the question is the notion that it has not yet been proved. Despite protestations to the contrary.


I think this point is moot. You, me, and everyone on ATS and around the world knows that there will not be any investigation into 9/11 for the next 70 years. If you really THINK about the implications...The US would be decimated. How many lives in multiple countries have been lost and destroyed since 9/11? That's just one aspect of it. No, the real truth will not be revealed for a long time, if ever. But I still think the OS is fishy



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

I'm not a "Truther". That word gets thrown around here like an insult and a way to group everyone who doesnt agree with the OS into one big circus. Labeling someone for their beliefs is pathetic. I ask that question because it's valid. What WOULD you do? Personally, I'd stay the crap out of the US.


Okay, it's just that usually the question is asked because it's an examination of sceptics' motives. It's designed to say that "even if their was proof you wouldn't accept it because you're so entrenched". I just find that interesting because within the logic of the question is the firm idea that the facts remain unproven.

If your question is "what actual practical steps would I take" then I think I would become a very vocal campaigner against the US. And I certainly would probably stay out of the country! I do find it strange that so many truthers believe in such a far-reaching, venal, and deadly conspiracy, and yet do so little about it. I've discussed this before with bsbray and (s)he is absolutely happy to do nothing in response to what amounts to a secret and far-reaching tyranny. Even if it's just to publicise 9/11 Truth more actively.

I have to say that, for me, this suggests a motive for belief more strongly rooted in an emotional need to feel 'initiated' and superior than a true reading of the evidence. It's basically irresponsible, a cop out, and it chimes with the British activist George Monbiot's take on 9/11 Truth:

"In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the “9/11 truth movement” is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the [conspirators] is the coward’s fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don’t have the stomach to engage in real political fights."

I see that it may be uncomfortable to be called a truther, but I didn't mean it particularly as an insult. I disagree with Christians about Jesus being God, but I don't imply anything perjorative - beyond my disgareement - when I call them Christians. And even though there are a lot of different types of them I still have to have a "label" for them because sometimes one has to talk about them en masse.

Indeed you do a similar thing when you talk about the "OS". It's just a shorthand, and in itself isn't particularly meaningful. I was using truther in a similar shorthand manner.



I think this point is moot. You, me, and everyone on ATS and around the world knows that there will not be any investigation into 9/11 for the next 70 years. If you really THINK about the implications...The US would be decimated. How many lives in multiple countries have been lost and destroyed since 9/11? That's just one aspect of it. No, the real truth will not be revealed for a long time, if ever. But I still think the OS is fishy


You're right, the point is absolutely moot. To the extent that, with respect, I'm not sure it's really worth discussing.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join