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

page: 82
417
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I don't know why you keep refering to the FEMA study, it was an initial study that was later superceded by the more detailed NIST, NCST study.

From the NIST study:


As a result of the recovery efforts of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, Federal
Emergency Management Agency/American Society of Civil Engineers, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel
examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. Elements
located in or near the impact zone and fire damaged regions were emphasized in the selection process.
These samples include full exterior column panels, core columns, portions of the floor truss members,
channels used to attach the floor trusses to the interior columns, and other smaller structural components
(e.g., bolts, diagonal bracing straps, aluminum façade, etc.). These structural components were used for
evaluation and/or testing relative to the fire and structural response of the WTC buildings.


I think you need to carefully read these reports, it may clear up some of your questions about "discarded" materials, etc.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

I refer to FEMA because that study was the one that was responsible for saving a majority of pieces which NIST could then later test. If FEMA saved more steel, maybe NIST could have tested more steel. But as FEMA and NIST saved so little steel, NIST could only test a little steel.

And for the rest of my reasoning please see my last post.

Why do you think we should ignore FEMA and their process of saving the pieces?

And I all ready asked you to point out where in the NIST report it talks about "discarded" pieces, because I read it and it's not in there.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 



I refer to FEMA because that study was the one that was responsible for saving a majority of pieces which NIST could then later test. If FEMA saved more steel, maybe NIST could have tested more steel. But as FEMA and NIST saved so little steel, NIST could only test a little steel.

Did you even read what I posted from the NIST report? Did you read any of the reports from the NIST? Where are you getting this stuff that the NIST/NCST team where only able to examine what FEMA saved?

Why do you think we should ignore FEMA and their process of saving the pieces?

Huh? All the material from Ground Zero was taken to various landfills where it was examined.

And I all ready asked you to point out where in the NIST report it talks about "discarded" pieces, because I read it and it's not in there.

Thats what I keep asking - where are you getting this "discarded" language from? I think you may have infered that from something I wrote but now are obsessed with finding it literally in some other place. No one but you, as far as I know, has said anything about steel being discarded. Like I posted above, the NIST teams examined an enormous amount of the materials but only decided to examine in greater detail those pieces that they could identify with some level of certainty as having come from the impact/fire zones by virture of markings on the steel and review of shop drawings and 'as-builts' plans.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Originally posted by hooper
Where are you getting this stuff that the NIST/NCST team where only able to examine what FEMA saved?


What part of "for saving a majority of pieces which NIST could then later test."

What's your definition of "majority"?

To me 156 pieces out of 236 is a majority because it's over 50%.

What's your definition? Is it less than 50%? Or does it mean 100% in your dictionary?



And I guess I have to get REALLY simple.

Let's be conservative and say one complete floor of WTC1 was totally engulfed in flames and affected all the columns. That means 301 columns would have been affected by the fire. (And no I'm not saying that's the case for one floor, this is just an example)

The buildings fell down, the pieces were then taken to the landfills.

That means 301 columns affected by the fires in the building were at the landfills.

FEMA and NIST went to the landfills to find pieces to save. (Notice I mentioned NIST, too)

They found 236 pieces (not all affected by fire, but this is a conservative example).

Which, in this example, means there is a minimum of 65 more columns affected by the fires in the buildings in the landfills.

Now, either the people with FEMA examined these 65 columns or they never saw them.

If they never saw them, to me that's a problem, but not about what we are talking about.

If they saw them, they must have seen they were affected by fire and should have saved them.

They could not have discarded them because they couldn't identify them, as they saved other burnt pieces without identifying them.

They could not have discarded them because they were post-collapse fires, because, according to you. they couldn't tell the difference.

So why would they have discarded them? Or did they just not see them?

-------End of Example------------

NOw what if we were to try to put realistic numbers on the amount of columns that were affected by the fire in the buildings?

How would that compare to the 236 pieces that they found? (not all 236 were affected by fire)

How many would that leave in the landfills to either be not seen or to be seen and then discarded?
edit on 16-4-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I don't know why you keep refering to the FEMA study, it was an initial study that was later superceded by the more detailed NIST, NCST study.


No one is interested in the NIST report; please stop using it as a credible source of science. The fact is NIST has been proven a *fraud,* and is not accepted in the scientific community.


29 Structural/Civil Engineers
Cite Evidence for Controlled
Explosive Demolition in
Destruction of All 3 WTC
High-Rises on 9/11

More than 700 architects and engineers
have joined call for new investigation,
faulting official reports

www2.ae911truth.org...


Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

911blogger.com...


Propping Up the War on Terror
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

www.911review.com...


The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...


Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century

911research.wtc7.net...


The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites

www.journalof911studies.com...


Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

If you are interested in the truth, start by not supporting the OS lies.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I think I know where you may be confused. Please read the report again. They examined an enormous amount of the steel recovered at Ground Zero and taken to various landfills and storage sites. They were only able to positively or near positively identify a small sample of the material that may have been been from the impact/fire zone. You are conflating "finding" with "identifying". Their intent was to conduct a detailed examination of the material from that section of the building for the express purpose of determining the extent of the damage done by the impact of the airplane, the explosion and the fire. Not to examine every square inch of steel surface of every piece of steel in the world trade centers. But because of the nature of the collapse and clean up they did, by default, end up looking at an enormous amount of the overall material.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



No one is interested in the NIST report; please stop using it as a credible source of science. The fact is NIST has been proven a *fraud,* and is not accepted in the scientific community

Really? And what, pray tell constitutes the "scientific community" in your world?
Any of these organizations:

American Physical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Soceity of Civil Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Institue of Chemical Engineers

And on and on. Any one of them publsih anything that states the NIST report is a "fraud"? No, just conspiracy cult websites.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, hooper, I think you need to read the report again because there are pieces they did not identify which they saved. If they saved some that could not be identified, why not others?

"Spell it again, NIcon"

Okay I will .... I-D-E-N-T-I-F-Y

Please don't tell me to read a report that it seems you haven't.

But for now it's been fun.... I must now go babble with my 3 year old.... maybe I'll try to teach him the spelling of identify and find.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by hooper
 


No, hooper, I think you need to read the report again because there are pieces they did not identify which they saved. If they saved some that could not be identified, why not others?

"Spell it again, NIcon"

Okay I will .... I-D-E-N-T-I-F-Y

Please don't tell me to read a report that it seems you haven't.

But for now it's been fun.... I must now go babble with my 3 year old.... maybe I'll try to teach him the spelling of identify and find.

Well, consider yourself very lucky, I am stuck in a hotel on a long business trip away from home.
Just for the record, neither the NIST or the NCST was in charge of either saving or discarding matrerials. They choose certain materials out of literally hundreds of thousands of tons of material for further examination because they were, by original markings, able to determine that they were probably from the impact/fire zone.

The report also states that a lot of the material was saved for various purposes including historical record and for incorporation into various memorials throughout the country.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Also, just for the record, I think they should have saved it all. This is a big country, we save a lot of crap - we could have saved it all. But, they didn't ask me and I didn't own it. But there is still quite a bit of it left.

I would have taken all the material (except, of course human remains and personal effects) and divided it up into 50 even piles and put one in each state.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'll gladly get to that, but again you are ignoring the questions I put forward. Are they correct or incorrect? The Cardington tests show that both fire and unprotected steel rise rapidly in temperature to above 800C, which would definitely result in weakening the steel significantly.


Yes but they did not prove it would result in failure of a building, in fact they showed that the trusses could withstand 1000C and not fail. They sagged yes, no one is questioning that, what is being questioned is the stretch that sagging trusses would pull in larger columns and cause complete failure of the building.

The trusses would sag because heat would cause them to expand, which means the trusses got bigger and needed to go somewhere. They could not push out the columns from their expansion so they sag down instead, they don't pull the columns in.

You argument seems to be based around whether fire can cause trusses to sag, steel to weaken, yes it can. But you want it to then be automatically fact that it would cause complete failure of the buildings.

Is that because NIST told you it was inevitable once initiated? And you believe that?


Even so, this is further on than what I want to discuss, and will only lead to us getting distracted.


Distracted from what? Your desire to prove what NIST said about sagging trusses is possible? That you think complete collapse was inevitable once initiated? The truth? Real physics? Your desire to nit-pic points that have no real relevance when you look at the whole picture?


In my experience, most truthers believe they understand the laws of motion, but are severely deficient in this regard. Take backinblack, who I debated over Apollo hoax theories, he was aggressive in his condemning of others, but it turns out he did not even understand how to calculate the effect of gravity, or the difference between weight and mass.


What has that to do with me? My quote was in response to people I debate here on the 911 forum. I can't answer for blackinblack. I wasn't part of that discussion. I know my physics knowledge is sound, I did go to school for engineering principles which covers physics I, II, and III. I constantly prove I'm right with links, and yes copy and paste if it's relevant. If you choose to blow them off as just C&P then that is a little disingenuous.

Why do OSers always avoid disusing the laws of motion, and waffle on about KE and gravity? Like they're not all connected physical laws? KE and mass are governed by the laws of motion, the laws of motion don't change, Hooper claims they do and thinks we need a new phenomena to explain things. Yes, new physics to explain how a high rise building can completely collapse itself through the path of most resistance from fires at the top. What nonsense. Anything to avoid the obvious.

Two choices...

The towers fell from fire, and we need a new physical phenomena to explain it.

Or...

There was another energy acting on the towers to remove the resistance ahead of the collapse wave.


I hope you will prove that in fact you do know what you're talking about, and you will be able to conduct a proper debate on the subject, that would be nice and refreshing.


Back at ya mate. Seriously I made my point, with sources, and you just waffle on about irrelevant nonsense.

I'm not the one who is supposed to have the answers, I'm the one asking questions. The government is the one who should be answering the questions, and you as you are acting as their proxy.

edit on 4/16/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Also, just for the record, I think they should have saved it all. This is a big country, we save a lot of crap - we could have saved it all. But, they didn't ask me and I didn't own it. But there is still quite a bit of it left.

I would have taken all the material (except, of course human remains and personal effects) and divided it up into 50 even piles and put one in each state.


Being sarcastic doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that any steel got hot enough to fail.

This is why you and the OS fail. You claim the OS is fact, yet you don't have any facts, only assumptions and opinions.

If you can't prove the buildings fell as claimed by the official story, then you have nothing to stand on.

The burden of proof is with the OS and you, acting as a proxy for it. If all the steel was not tested then it's an incomplete investigation, you can't make claims based on wishful thinking. But I can say no steel was found to have got hot enough to fail, because that is a fact. If the outcome of the investigation relied on proving steel got hot enough to fail then they should not have stopped investigating.

But really this is all just a distraction from the real fact that the towers could not have collapsed themselves with no other energy acting on them other than KE and gravity. The laws of motion proves this.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Being sarcastic doesn't change the fact that you have no proof that any steel got hot enough to fail.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I really think all of the material should have been saved and distributed to the 50 states. Maybe some going overseas to those countries that lost their citizens that day.

This is why you and the OS fail. You claim the OS is fact, yet you don't have any facts, only assumptions and opinions.

Well, its getting 10 years on now so I think you better start phrasing that in the first person, as in "I think the OS failed" because you see there are few to hardly any folks out there who think that way.

If you can't prove the buildings fell as claimed by the official story, then you have nothing to stand on.

Actually, its been "proven" to the extent that today's science and technology is capable. The idea that you don't accept the limitations of this reality does not detract from that certainty.

The burden of proof is with the OS and you, acting as a proxy for it. If all the steel was not tested then it's an incomplete investigation, you can't make claims based on wishful thinking. But I can say no steel was found to have got hot enough to fail, because that is a fact. If the outcome of the investigation relied on proving steel got hot enough to fail then they should not have stopped investigating.

Nope, sorry, it was as a complete an investigation as the circumstances requried. The conclusions of the report were accepted as a reasonable explanation of the observed events. Did they going looking for thermite, mini nukes, TNT or other manifestations of exotic conspiracy fanatasies - no. There was no rational basis for doing so. Also it's just plain useless. No matter what they tested for, no matter how much they tested, when one is limited by only the human imagination then there will always be some objection that they didn't test for "x" and of course the lack of that testing will be proof of an "inside job".

But really this is all just a distraction from the real fact that the towers could not have collapsed themselves with no other energy acting on them other than KE and gravity. The laws of motion proves this.

No, they really don't. And repeating physics mantras like 'laws of motion" and "conservation of blah, blah, blah" won't make that so.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



American Physical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Soceity of Civil Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Institue of Chemical Engineers


Prove to me that all of these institutions support the NIST report?
Just because none of them published anything agaist NIST it does not mean they support their psudeo science.


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



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


www.ae911truth.org...

Is not a conspiracy website you have never bothered to read the scientific technical reports supporting demolitions?


The fact is NIST was proven a fraud and if you say it was not you will be lying.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper
 



American Physical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Soceity of Civil Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Institue of Chemical Engineers


Prove to me that all of these institutions support the NIST report?

Well, I can't seem to find a single report, letter, or publication from any of them announcing it is a fraud. They are part of, if not the totality of the scientific community and they must be well aware of the NIST report and its findings and no report of fraud, ergo they do support it. Sorry, thats just the way it is.





posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper
 



ae911truth.org


Is a conspiracy website, plain and simple. Conspiracy is their bread and butter.


The fact is NIST was proven a fraud and if you say it was not you will be lying.

It has never been proven a fraud. At least not in the real world.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, you want to start playing with words, fine, I can do that.


I know you can do that, but these words are significantly different. "Hypothesis" is not the same as "proof." That's not just semantics, it means something in the real world where adults go out and do things that are worth a damn.

If you want to qualify NIST's report as a hypothesis, like they do themselves, that's fine. If you want to say they proved something, then no, you're lying, because you already know better, and you chose to turn this into a 'word game' where you distort reality as you see fit.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, you want to start playing with words, fine, I can do that.


I know you can do that, but these words are significantly different. "Hypothesis" is not the same as "proof." That's not just semantics, it means something in the real world where adults go out and do things that are worth a damn.

If you want to qualify NIST's report as a hypothesis, like they do themselves, that's fine. If you want to say they proved something, then no, you're lying, because you already know better, and you chose to turn this into a 'word game' where you distort reality as you see fit.


Can you please show me where the NIST explicitly stated that the conclusions of their extensive investigations were only a hypothesis?

Also, I am assuming because you want to categorize their work as only a hypothesis then we should therefore give equal weight and merit to any other concept that you think you can label as a hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Don't get too ahead of yourself putting words in my mouth yet. I know it must be hard not to.


Start here: wtc.nist.gov...

The section of relevance is "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers" : wtc.nist.gov...


The hypothesis to-be-tested was that the trusses could exert enough force to pull in perimeter columns once they became so hot. Look through there, and you'll see nowhere was it ever verified. NIST's doesn't even pretend that they verified it, and they just don't talk about it.


In fact they even show you pictures of a WTC fire simulation here: wtc.nist.gov...

They recreated the entire perimeter-truss set up, and put it under megawatt burners and other uncontrolled fires for periods of time, measured the temperatures reached, deflections, etc. It did not validate their hypothesis. What they said collapsed the WTC, did not happen in the lab.

The bottom line is that they never proved it, and they don't even claim that they proved it. It started a hypothesis and remained a hypothesis when the investigation was complete.





new topics
 
417
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join