Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
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.

Its not opinion, there is no photographic proof and there is no explanation. And Bsbray sort of admitted to both. He literally said "it's only logical to assume". Maybe he and you find it a logical assumption, but I need a logical explanation in order to find something logical. Logical to me is that the floors and core fell down, as there is basically only a gravitational force acting on them. It is also logical to me that when a pile of debris falls on the ground, it will spread out. Bsbray claims the floors and core ejected sidewards during collapse. He does not explain what causes the force responsible for this. It seems he believes that there was magic at work here, as there just isn't any logical explanation at all, not even explosives.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Its not opinion, there is no photographic proof and there is no explanation.

That IS simply your opinion. Just because you refuse to see the obvious in post collapse pictures it doesn't mean you're right.

And Bsbray sort of admitted to both. He literally said "it's only logical to assume". Maybe he and you[/find it a logical assumption, but I need a logical explanation in order to find something logical. Logical to me is that the floors and core fell down, as there is basically only a gravitational force acting on them.

No, gravity is not the only force acting on the buildings. Why do you debunkers all keep refusing to account for the resistance of the lower undamaged structure? You either do it on purpose, or you don't understand why it's important. It's not logical to ignore the fact that according to Newtons laws of motion that collapse could not have been complete using the OS method of collapse. Its up to you to prove the OS is correct, and NO ONE has been able to do that.

It is also logical to me that when a pile of debris falls on the ground, it will spread out.

So why didn't the debris of WTC 7 logically 'spread out'?

The problem with the towers is, if the debris is spreading out then how is it doing any downwards crushing? You can't have it both ways. First off there was not enough weight in the top to crush the lower floors, if it could do any crushing at all, according to Newtons laws of motion, colliding objects experience equal force, so if a floor dropped on a floor and is destroyed, LOGICALLY the dropping floor would also be destroyed itself. The floors all had the same mass, except the mechanical floors which would have offered even more resistance.

Bsbray claims the floors and core ejected sidewards during collapse. He does not explain what causes the force responsible for this. It seems he believes that there was magic at work here, as there just isn't any logical explanation at all, not even explosives.

This is the problem, we don't know what the cause was, OK? That is why the OS is in question because it doesn't explain how that happened either. And we KNOW it couldn't have been from the collapse itself, because according to the OS all that debris being ejected was supposed to be crushing the floors bellow them (not that is could again due to the laws of motion). You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Did you ever make a contribution in this thread with content or extra insight?

If you ever actually read any of posts you would know that.

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?

Why don't you just use your eyes and look, and quit pretending you can't see anything. Buy some new glasses or a new monitor. I can see the pics fine on my HP LP2478w. Did you even look at the pics I already posted?

Pay attention to details PLB...



Those outer columns you see still standing are from the lowest floors...



That is how high the rubble pile was in the footprint. So PLB, logically, where do you think the rest went huh?

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, are you still under the assumption that the WTCs were not tube-in-tube floor trussed buildings? Are you still thinking that they were conventional steel framed buildings? Because they were not. Have you ever read some articles that stated the design itself was what may have been responsible for its rapid collapse?

How exactly would the lower floors give enough resistance to the collapsing section above? Its not as if the floors were designed for vertical dynamic forces. During the collapse, you can actually see the floors dropping down ahead of the exterior columns. Exactly how the floors below would withstand thousands of tons of vertical force bearing down on it, is beyond me. But how about you explain just how the structure below the collapse should have arrested the collapse or slowed it down. I'm curious to hear this because to me, you have no real idea and are poorly misinformed about the true state of the structure's collapse.

architecture.about.com...

architecture.about.com.../XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=73&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.designnews.com/articl e/CA6363426.html

read these above articles and see what the actual professionals are thinking about this. Not much in terms of explosives though.

reply to post by ANOK


Look from other perspectives:





Around the footprint you mostly see the distinctive perimeter columns. Inside the footprint mostly an indistinguishable pile of debris, which goes further underground. Also note that inside the footprint the pile is highest, just as expected.

I just don't see any evidence in these pictures that nearly all the floors and core ejected during collapse.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Both of those pics show there is hardly anything of the tower in its footprint.

1st pic, just like the other pic I showed you, you can see the lower outer columns of the tower which only went up a few floors. Behind it, sitting much higher, is the rubble of WTC 6, and behind that is WTC 7 in its footprint. A 47 story building with a taller rubble pile than the 110 story building in front of it.

Second pic is just the angle of the pic makes it look higher, but again you can still see the lower tree columns of the tower behind it. That pile is no more than a few floors high.

Thank for clarifying what I've already said.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

You are being more stubborn than a mule.

1) Debris (not just perimeter columns and concrete dust but ALL KINDS OF DEBRIS) is flying out of towers in all directions in a massive cloud.

2) Afterward, there are perimeter columns, core columns AND truss remains scattered all over Ground Zero.


And this is too much for you to handle.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

Aww what a pity, I missed an opportunity to learn "physical concepts" from someone who can't even work a free-body diagram or do vector math.

So what mechanism for ejecting debris do you propose?

I forgot how many times I've responded to this fallacy, but enough to where I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself anymore. If you can't read then that's your problem.

reply to post by ANOK


Both pictures also show there are hardly any floors parts and core columns visible outside the footprint. Could a large portion of the debris have fallen underground, into the basement? Do you agree with Bsbray that virtually all of the floors and core columns ejected? Do you agree there was an open space above the point of collapse?

reply to post by bsbray11


Calling the request for an explanation a fallacy shows the true nature of this truther. You are not looking for truth, you are looking for whatever confirms your delusion.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Calling the request for an explanation a fallacy shows the true nature of this truther. You are not looking for truth, you are looking for whatever confirms your delusion.

I don't come here to breast feed you explanations and truth.

That's what I come here expecting from people like you who think you already know it all.

I made a simple observation that is as based on pure fact as photographs and videos themselves. You think asking me to explain it somehow refutes the observations. It does not. It only lends credence to my own position, that we still have no clue what brought those buildings down.


The bottom line is, I know that I don't know. You don't even know that you don't know, and that is why you are confused by photographs and videos that are beyond arguing with, and you just start demanding explanations as if observations are illusions without them. I am content waiting for a real investigation to provide real answers. I guess that's also more than you can handle?

reply to post by bsbray11


So you are not seeing a big pile of debris in the footprint in the pictures I posted? And you deny that any debris went underground? Interesting, as that evidence directly disproves your claims. Not many pages ago you were even arguing the subways could not provide oxygen because they were hermetically sealed with dense debris.

I have given you plenty explanations, you just don't accept them because they disagree with your delusion. I indeed can not explain your assumption that the floors and cores ejected during collapse, but that is because it has no basis in reality. It didn't happen. It is "physically impossible", a phrase popular by truthers. Your own inability to give any explanation at all should ring a bell for you. Maybe it is time to revise your position on what happened, how you interpret the photos, because magic doesn't exist.

I'm still waiting bsbray or ANOK to explain how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate is able to launch tons of steel horizontally on "ballistic trajectories" only allegedly achievable via explosives, and how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate managed to launch and eject floor trusses and core columns. After all, isnt that what is being argued for demolition? Magical paint on thermite? Or are we switching between the two on purpose so once there is too much heat on one item, the other is brought up to keep the CD idea going? One day its high power explosives launching steel, the next day it's thermite that is somehow super dooper military engineered to be painted on or used as a fuse. And they think the "OS" has holes in it!

we can all agree that what we see in the first video that started this thread... this engineer makes homemade thermite and homemade containers to hold the thermite and shows that homemade thermite can cut thru steel beams and bolts and cut in a variety of ways and not much thermite is needed.

we can all agree that there is alot of verbal and physical evidence of "molten metal" at the towers.

we can all agree that there are alot of witnesses that heard "explosions" at the towers.

so when it comes right down to 'it', whos explanation will you believe? the one you want to believe?

that said, even a more fundamental question is; can you honestly look at both sides of the argument before you make a judgement. this requires suspending some preconceived notions, which is very difficult.

happy researching

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm still waiting bsbray or ANOK to explain how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate is able to launch tons of steel horizontally on "ballistic trajectories" only allegedly achievable via explosives, and how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate managed to launch and eject floor trusses and core columns. After all, isnt that what is being argued for demolition? Magical paint on thermite? Or are we switching between the two on purpose so once there is too much heat on one item, the other is brought up to keep the CD idea going? One day its high power explosives launching steel, the next day it's thermite that is somehow super dooper military engineered to be painted on or used as a fuse. And they think the "OS" has holes in it!

Why do I need to answer that?

Did I EVER say thermite can do that?

Did I EVER say thermite was the only energy used?

I actually don't even argue about what was used, it doesn't matter to me that much. There is enough evidence that the buildings were controlled demolitions without the need to prove what was actually used. The final outcome of the collapses is enough, as there isn't enough energy available to completely collapse the towers as per the OS, and WTC 7 could not have landed in its footprint from a natural collapse.

So again another pointless post from Gen trying to discredit the discussion, why do you bother mate?

reply to post by ANOK


Well lets see, you didnt say it outright, but here you are ranting about how can steel be launched 500ft from a 1360ft tower, on a thread about how thermate being used properly in cutting steel. Since this is about thermate doing what its suppose to do, cutting steel, and showing it, what do demolition charges have to do with thermate? So I assumed naturally that somehow you are arguing that thermate or whatever it is, may be responsible.

How can there not be enough energy to destroy the buildings when the collapses began? How? Because you said so?

Stand down everybody, ANOK said that there was not enough energy in the building alone to destroy the whole structure. Why? Because he said so. So, case closed. Go on, nothing to see here!

ANOK, seriously, how, pray tell, do you know that there was not enough energy to destroy the buildings without any extra help from a combo of thermite/demo charges?
Oh and WTC7 was not in its footprint. Ever heard of the former Fritterman Hall?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

Well lets see, you didnt say it outright, but here you are ranting about how can steel be launched 500ft from a 1360ft tower, on a thread about how thermate being used properly in cutting steel. Since this is about thermate doing what its suppose to do, cutting steel, and showing it, what do demolition charges have to do with thermate? So I assumed naturally that somehow you are arguing that thermate or whatever it is, may be responsible.

How can there not be enough energy to destroy the buildings when the collapses began? How? Because you said so?

Stand down everybody, ANOK said that there was not enough energy in the building alone to destroy the whole structure. Why? Because he said so. So, case closed. Go on, nothing to see here!

ANOK, seriously, how, pray tell, do you know that there was not enough energy to destroy the buildings without any extra help from a combo of thermite/demo charges?
Oh and WTC7 was not in its footprint. Ever heard of the former Fritterman Hall?

That's WTC7 semantics and you know that, you shudda left that bit out. As for the towers, you are quite correct, the steel was launched, up to 600ft and that's going by the official story, except it is not explained properly IN the official story.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you are not seeing a big pile of debris in the footprint in the pictures I posted?

What you call "big" is irrelevant. The majority of the mass of both towers is missing from the footprints (those piles don't even extend beyond the former lobby of either building), and is laying everywhere else. There is no reason to believe it all crammed into the basement where no one could see it, when everyone could plainly see it laying everywhere.

And you deny that any debris went underground?

Again there is no reason to believe that the majority of the debris that's missing from the footprints as seen from above ground, all crammed into the basements where we can't see it. That's just a desperate excuse. I have seen plenty of photos of the excavation all the way to the bath tub and there are not two towers' worth of structure buried under there, and much/most of it was even still intact, including core columns all the way to the foundation.

Interesting, as that evidence directly disproves your claims. Not many pages ago you were even arguing the subways could not provide oxygen because they were hermetically sealed with dense debris.

I posted three photos of subway entrance/exit tunnels to the WTC. They are collapsed in and blocked off. They are not filled with two skyscrapers' worth of steel. Stop inventing fantasies when you can see plenty enough debris above-ground to explain where it all went.

I have given you plenty explanations

All of them attempts to avoid the obvious debris spread above ground, and all of them lacking any evidence at all.

It didn't happen. It is "physically impossible", a phrase popular by truthers. Your own inability to give any explanation at all should ring a bell for you. Maybe it is time to revise your position on what happened, how you interpret the photos, because magic doesn't exist.

Repeatedly telling me what I'm seeing in photos is magic and doesn't exist is only making me feel more and more sorry for you. You see the buildings explode in all directions as they "collapse," and you then see steel (including core columns and truss remains) spread all over Ground Zero and beyond. And then you say the steel wasn't really thrown in all directions like FEMA even drew in a diagram, even though that's exactly what everyone saw when the buildings "collapsed," and that's what proven by steel laying in heaps by the ton all over the area. That's a real delusion.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm still waiting bsbray or ANOK to explain how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate is able to launch tons of steel horizontally on "ballistic trajectories" only allegedly achievable via explosives, and how (super/nano/paint-on)thermite/ate managed to launch and eject floor trusses and core columns.

I never said thermite did that, and I never said what did it.

It's amazing that you can't comprehend people who still want a better investigation. If I thought I already knew what happened on 9/11 I wouldn't be interested in a real investigation. I just don't drink the government kool-aid that you've been enjoying.

After all, isnt that what is being argued for demolition? Magical paint on thermite? Or are we switching between the two on purpose so once there is too much heat on one item, the other is brought up to keep the CD idea going?

Again you are extremely confused as to why we are here at all. Why do you think I'm here to make any positive case at all when I'm constantly repeating that there's a total lack of evidence for why those buildings came down?

And they think the "OS" has holes in it!

Of course when you are just fantasizing things to yourself that neither of us are actually saying, you're going to see whatever you want.

reply to post by bsbray11


I am nowhere denying that debris spread over a large area. The problem seems to be that you don't want to differentiate between the core and floors and the perimiter walls. You can clearly see that the debris outside the footprint consists mostly of the perimiter columns. Most of the floors and core columns would have fallen inside the footprint, as there is no mechanism for them to eject. Magic does not exist. If you can actually account for a large part of the floors and core on the photos then you have a point, and we would have a mystery on our hands (still no proof for CD though). But you can't, you just assume it. I am not really sure where you got this wild idea from, I havn't read it from other truthers.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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".

In a sense, yes. I have little doubt that are are plenty of individuals here who don't really care about the implications, but rather only care about aggrivating others. Knowing that the person you are trying to have a "debate" with would actually buy into an investigation's outcome that goes completely against the OS is a good thing.

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.

It's not necessarily uncomfortable, but more of a matter of perception. In fact, if the word "Truther" implies that the person simply thinks we were not told the truth about 9/11, and would like to see a more thorough investigation, then by all means I am one. However, and this seems more the case, if "Truther" includes those who believe in "no plane theories" and space-beams, then I have little in common with them, and I'm sure I speak for many. So it depends on how one perceives being called a "truther", and since it sppears to be an insult more often than not, I prefer to not be called one.

To add to that, even though I don't subscribe to a "no plane theory", I'm not about to click into one of the threads and start hounding, harassing, and provoking those who do for 40+ pages. It would be great if everyone shared that ideal. But you have clowns like Hooper and Dave and more who go into each thread playing the game to see who can throw out the most insults without having their post deleted by a Moderator. There is no real debate with them, but more of the game to insult, aggrivate, and belittle. It's pitiful.

In regard to the Christian comparison, while I don't know for sure, I'm fairly certain that they proudly call THEMSELVES "Christians", whereas the label of "Truther" was probably conceived here by "debunkers", but again, I don't know that for sure. If I'm wrong, accept my apology.