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: 81
420
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Also they admitted that only three pieces of steel showed signs of heating to 600C and the others only to 250C.

If I recall they admitted that they only could identify, with any certainity, a limited number of steel members that came from the fire/impact zone. Your statement implies that they identified and examined all the steel members of the structure and found only three pieces to be subject to those temperatures.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


It doesn't matter, you can't make claims you have no evidence to support.

I'll bet you anything the majority of the steel didn't get above room temperature. There, that is my assumption. You can argue the point all day, but neither of us have evidence. But seeing as in WTC 1 the fires were above the 90th floor, that leaves the majority of the steel untouched.

Stop using assumptions as facts. Common sense and experience work much better. If you want to argue on behalf of the OS then you need to stick to the OS, not make up stuff that it didn't address.

Why didn't they test more steel? Seems they weren't that concerned about proving there own hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



It doesn't matter, you can't make claims you have no evidence to support.

Uh, yes it does matter, quite a bit. Your statement implies that all the steel was positively identified as to its location in the structure and examined accordingly. That didn't happen.

I'll bet you anything the majority of the steel didn't get above room temperature. There, that is my assumption.

And you would be correct. Since a vast majority of the steel was located outside of the fire/impact zones.

You can argue the point all day, but neither of us have evidence.

Oh, I think I can present plenty of evidence that steel in the world trade center was exposed to fire and heat in excess of "room temperatures".

But seeing as in WTC 1 the fires were above the 90th floor, that leaves the majority of the steel untouched.

Duh.

Stop using assumptions as facts.

You first.

Common sense and experience work much better.

And exactly what is your experience with large plane impacts and fires at the World Trade Center towers? Bet its not much different than mine.

If you want to argue on behalf of the OS then you need to stick to the OS, not make up stuff that it didn't address.

Didn't make anything up.

Why didn't they test more steel? Seems they weren't that concerned about proving there own hypothesis

No, because they were professionals and recognized that much of the steel was exposed to heat after the collapse as the wreckage was burning for days and therefore could not establish what effects were the result of the initial impact and fire and what was the effect of post collapse exposure to heat from fires on the site.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, you're one of those people who think "truthers" have to prove everything about 9/11, and our government never had any responsibility to figure out anything at all, aren't you?



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
wow. a million pages later, and it's devolved into the same old, same old.

just dropped by to say hi.
hi.

a guy cut the columns directionally with thermite. done deal. it can be done, so stop saying it can't. that is the POINT of this thread.
edit on 15-4-2011 by billybob because: to say, i read bsbray's post, which wasn't there when i started posting, and just wanted to say hi. keep on rockin' in the free world.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper, you're one of those people who think "truthers" have to prove everything about 9/11, and our government never had any responsibility to figure out anything at all, aren't you?


What's the point of continuing with this trolling? You have been unable to engage in debate, unable to link to facts you claim exist, and now you're trying to just aggravate things rather than actually engage.

Why not just have an honest discussion about the facts, I know you're a big fan of Cardington so now's a perfect time to show us all exactly how it disagrees with the NIST report.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
What's the point of continuing with this trolling?


It's not trolling, it's the real-life scenario here. Congress commissioned NIST to figure out what happened to those buildings, and for many ignorant individuals this apparently translates into it being the "truthers'" burden to prove everything about what happened. That's trolling.



You have been unable to engage in debate, unable to link to facts you claim exist, and now you're trying to just aggravate things rather than actually engage.


This is a bunch of lies. I made your burden perfectly clear for you and you backed away from it yourself, ending up trying to twist NIST's own words and lying again just to feel like you had made some point.


Whenever you can defend NIST's report without lying about what they say themselves, fine, I'm listening. Until then, grow up.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, yes it does matter, quite a bit. Your statement implies that all the steel was positively identified as to its location in the structure and examined accordingly. That didn't happen.


No I didn't imply that, stop putting words in my mouth. My statement was quite clear as to how much steel they looked at and what they found. I implied nothing about where it was from.

You want to believe that evidence doesn't matter. They found no steel hot enough to fail, it's not my problem they chose to only look at a small part of the steel available. You want to fantasize that there was steel that got hot enough to fail that wasn't tested, maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but the point is they didn't seem that concerned to find it, otherwise they would have checked more steel till they found what they wanted.

My guess is they found all there was to find. That is my opinion and it's just as valid as yours as there is no proof either way, so guess what? We have to go by what we have, not what YOU think.


And you would be correct. Since a vast majority of the steel was located outside of the fire/impact zones.


And yet you still want to argue fire caused the collapses. How was all that resistance removed then?



Oh, I think I can present plenty of evidence that steel in the world trade center was exposed to fire and heat in excess of "room temperatures".


Read your above statement. You admit the majority of the buildings steel did not heat up, so again what took the resistance away? If you really think a fire on a few floors would collapse the whole building you need to explain why the 1975 fire didn't do the same. Starting on the 11th floor it spread from 9th to 19th through openings in the floor slabs, caused $2,000,000 damage. There was much more building above that fire than either one on 911, if you want to make the 'weight of the top did it' argument.


"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.


whatreallyhappened.com...

That must have been magic fire on 911 huh?


Duh.


Again what took the resistance away if you admit the majority of the building was not effected by the fires?


You first.


Explain to me what assumptions I'm making?


And exactly what is your experience with large plane impacts and fires at the World Trade Center towers? Bet its not much different than mine.


You don't need experience in that to know how physics works. You just need experience with physics and mechanics, which I have plenty of, and I'll bet anything more than you from what I've read from you. All you need is to understand the laws of motion, and the conservation of momentum, to understand the towers could not have collapsed themselves with no mass left in their footprints. This has been explained many times, you still fail to understand, or even explain yourself why I'm wrong.


Didn't make anything up.


Whenever you're talking about the collapses you are making things up, as NIST did not cover the collapses.


No, because they were professionals and recognized that much of the steel was exposed to heat after the collapse as the wreckage was burning for days and therefore could not establish what effects were the result of the initial impact and fire and what was the effect of post collapse exposure to heat from fires on the site.


See, this is you making things up. Remember you already admitted most of the building was not effected by the fire, so how did fire have anything to do with the collapse?


edit on 4/15/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



No I didn't imply that, stop putting words in my mouth. My statement was quite clear as to how much steel they looked at and what they found. I implied nothing about where it was from.

You want to believe that evidence doesn't matter. They found no steel hot enough to fail, it's not my problem they chose to only look at a small part of the steel available. You want to fantasize that there was steel that got hot enough to fail that wasn't tested, maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but the point is they didn't seem that concerned to find it, otherwise they would have checked more steel till they found what they wanted.

My guess is they found all there was to find. That is my opinion and it's just as valid as yours as there is no proof either way, so guess what? We have to go by what we have, not what YOU think.


You really don't get it or you don't want to admit it. Regardless the reality is the same. They did not examine every scrap of steel because there was no surefire (excuse the pun) way of absolutely identifying which piece came from what section of the building and no way to determine for sure if heat damage was a direct result of the impact/fire or later exposure in the burning debris.

And yet you still want to argue fire caused the collapses.

Yes and damage as a result of the impact, let us not ignore that little tidbit.

How was all that resistance removed then?

Who said it was besides you? You don't need to remove resistance in order to defeat it, you just need to exceed its ability impede your advance. If I advance my tank unto a brick wall I will continue to move forward with little impedance not because my tank magically removed the wall ahead of my path but because the resistance offered by the wall's structure was insufficient.

Read your above statement. You admit the majority of the buildings steel did not heat up, so again what took the resistance away? If you really think a fire on a few floors would collapse the whole building you need to explain why the 1975 fire didn't do the same. Starting on the 11th floor it spread from 9th to 19th through openings in the floor slabs, caused $2,000,000 damage. There was much more building above that fire than either one on 911, if you want to make the 'weight of the top did it' argument.

Well that and the little matter of a commercial jet crashing into it at 500mph and exploding. You keep forgetting about that part of the sequence.

That must have been magic fire on 911 huh?

Maybe the same magic that keeps making you forget about the plane crashing into the building.

Duh.

Ditto.

Again what took the resistance away if you admit the majority of the building was not effected by the fires?

"Resistance" is not insurmountable.

You don't need experience in that to know how physics works. You just need experience with physics and mechanics, which I have plenty of, and I'll bet anything more than you from what I've read from you. All you need is to understand the laws of motion, and the conservation of momentum, to understand the towers could not have collapsed themselves with no mass left in their footprints. This has been explained many times, you still fail to understand, or even explain yourself why I'm wrong.

So none of the mass of the towers was within the building foundation limits? I think there may be about 5000 photos out there that may prove you wrong. Oh, by the way, thinking you understand physics is not the same as actually being able to apply physics in complex real world events.

Whenever you're talking about the collapses you are making things up, as NIST did not cover the collapses.

Well, they did, they just did not need to explain the movements and reactions of every single one of the millions of elements that combined to make the tower structures. They explained how the ball got to the edge of the cliff and rolled over, they did not "explain" every inch of the fall thereafter.

No, because they were professionals and recognized that much of the steel was exposed to heat after the collapse as the wreckage was burning for days and therefore could not establish what effects were the result of the initial impact and fire and what was the effect of post collapse exposure to heat from fires on the site.

See, this is you making things up. Remember you already admitted most of the building was not effected by the fire, so how did fire have anything to do with the collapse?

This assumes that you really think that unless the entire building were completed engaged from basement to micorwave antena in a 2000c inferno the building would remain standing for all eternity.

Here's a question:

Lets pretend that 9/11 never happened - and the towers were never subjected to fires or impact by any other sources or not exposed to any other excessive external forces like super high winds or magnitude 10 earthquakes. Would they remain standing for all eternity? If the answer is no - then please explain why and how they would collapse.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, because they were professionals and recognized that much of the steel was exposed to heat after the collapse as the wreckage was burning for days and therefore could not establish what effects were the result of the initial impact and fire and what was the effect of post collapse exposure to heat from fires on the site.


Here's another interesting view from FEMA

FEMA203_apd pg D-4
"Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations."

So if they couldn't determine if the effects were from the fire in the building or the fire in the pile, that raises doubt, which to me, if they were being serious in the above statement, means they should have saved all pieces they found which showed the effects of burning.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 



So if they couldn't determine if the effects were from the fire in the building or the fire in the pile, that raises doubt, which to me, if they were being serious in the above statement, means they should have saved all pieces they found which showed the effects of burning.


And what? What should they do then? Don't forget the secondary problem was that there was no absolutely positive way of saying that a given scrap of steel came from a given location. The truss sections from the 40th floor were identical to the ones on the 44th floor, etc. And each truss is not marked with the floor or level. The trusses are simply identified by a number, for instance, in a given area there may be 14 - T1 trusses and 12 - T2 trusses, any T1 type truss can be used anywhere the framing plan calls for a T1 truss. "T1" is just an example, I don't know the actual nomenclature not having the shop drawings or the framing plans.

So they have a piece of metal, its obviously been exposed to heat but they may not be able to say for sure which floor it came from or whether the heat exposure is pre-collapse or post collapse. So what do you do?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


My opinion would have been to save it.

From FEMA's quote above, if we can take it seriously, it seems they had the same opinion.

Do you have evidence that they discarded pieces that were burnt but they could not identify it's location? When I look through their inventory that doesn't look to be the case.

edit on 16-4-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by hooper
 


My opinion would have been to save it.

From FEMA's quote above, if we can take it seriously, it seems they had the same opinion.

Do you have evidence that they discarded pieces that were burnt but they could not identify it's location? When I look through their inventory that doesn't look to be the case.

edit on 16-4-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)


Here:
wtc.nist.gov...

Thats 112 pages all about how the steel was identified or not indentified or partially identified. Who identified, how it was identified, where it was stored, how it was marked, what the markings mean, etc.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Thanks. I've read that a few times.

But I don't recall seeing in it where they discarded a piece that was burnt but they couldn't identify it. All I see is a description of the 236 pieces they saved. Most identified, some not.

Can you point out in the document where they discuss the pieces they discarded?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by hooper
 

Thanks. I've read that a few times.

But I don't recall seeing in it where they discarded a piece that was burnt but they couldn't identify it. All I see is a description of the 236 pieces they saved. Most identified, some not.

Can you point out in the document where they discuss the pieces they discarded?

Uh, why do you keep talking about "discarding"? I am not aware that the NIST or NCST investigation teams were charged with discarding any of the steel. I am also not aware of my saying they were. I could be wrong, please advise accordingly.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I notice you avoided my question Hooper. Maybe you didn't see my post?


Are you one of those people who thinks NIST never had any burden to prove anything at all about what happened at the WTC on 9/11, and that it was always up to "truthers" to investigate 9/11 and figure out everything that happened? Is that not what you think?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



I notice you avoided my question Hooper. Maybe you didn't see my post?

Actually, to tell the truth, I did miss it, my apologies.

Are you one of those people who thinks NIST never had any burden to prove anything at all about what happened at the WTC on 9/11, and that it was always up to "truthers" to investigate 9/11 and figure out everything that happened? Is that not what you think?

Ok, I am a little confused by the construction of the question. But I'll take a shot at answering what I think the question may be. I am one of those people that thinks the NIST did prove, withing the realm of existing technology, logic and science, what did happen to the WTC with regard to the collapse of the structures. I do not believe that they were burden with such things as proving planes hit the buildings, or disproving every fiction that was concocted by anyone with access to the internet.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


So you do think that NIST had the original burden of proving why the WTC collapsed then, just as they were commissioned by Congress to do?

Btw not even NIST says they proved anything, so you got that wrong. In the end all they had was a hypothesis. That's their word for it, not mine, in case you haven't even read their report. Look up the difference between "proof" and "hypothesis."



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Because a massive amount of steel was affected by the fires in the building. A massive amount of steel was affected by the fires in the debris pile. And most likely a massive amount of steel was affected by both.

So that means a massive amount was taken to the landfills and salvagers.

You said they couldn't tell the difference between fires in the piles from the fires in the building was the reason they didn't test more steel.

I read in FEMA that they saved pieces for "further study" that were burnt but not identified. So they didn't know if these pieces were affected by the fire before or after collapse.

So that means location was not always a criteria for saving pieces and neither was strictly pre-collapse fire damage (as they couldn't tell if it was pre or post).

I read in FEMA that they only saved 156 pieces up to May 2002.

Which means there was a massive amount of burnt steel at the landfills which they either never saw or they discarded for some reason.

If they never saw it we can safely assume we can never know if the pieces could be identified or not.

If they discarded it, I would like to know why they would discard some unidentified burnt pieces and not others.

That makes me think the process was flawed which, to me, is the real reason they didn't test more steel.
edit on 16-4-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by hooper
 


So you do think that NIST had the original burden of proving why the WTC collapsed then, just as they were commissioned by Congress to do?

Btw not even NIST says they proved anything, so you got that wrong. In the end all they had was a hypothesis. That's their word for it, not mine, in case you haven't even read their report. Look up the difference between "proof" and "hypothesis."


Ok, you want to start playing with words, fine, I can do that. I use proof because in the context of this forum and debate the the term proof is generally employed to describe the process of presenting a resolute system of facts that support a definite theory.

But I know this rhetorical game. You want to call the NIST report a "hypothesis" and therefore equate any other fantastical concoction as simply an alternative "hypothesis". Sorry, I'm not going for it and no one else is. The NIST showed their work and presented relevant credentials for those that composed the report, conclusions and recommendations.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join