John Cole, Ph.D Does it Again

An excellent collection of logical, and scientific pieces that should make fence-sitters think about the official
excuses given by media and government sources

This is not the same video as, "the great thermate debate"

reply to post by turbofan


Stopped watching when I saw "melt steel". Same old same old. Would appear at this juncture that the strategy has been reduced to post, debunk, and then post again pretending that its really all new again.

Pretty sad. All these years and nothing but a handful of useless youtube videos, half-baked essays and wild accusations. You would think after all this time and with all this supposed brainpower somebody would have put together a detailed, forensic explanation on how "CD" would have been designed and installed in order to reproduce what we all saw on 9/11.

Originally posted by hooperStopped watching when I saw "melt steel".

Of course you did, and that's why I addressed this to the 'fence sitters'.

You also have not bothered to read the science papers that this video refers to; so your claim about
"Youtube videos" is simply false.

Oh well , too bad you can't explain some logical points that this video addresses.

Perhaps you can tell Jon how the "spire" remained standing if the top section crushed the rest of the buidling?

(see video starting at 6:00 minutes)

Save your energy if you reply back with anything other than an explanation about the spire. I'm not here to debate
those who do not review the evidence.

reply to post by turbofan

Perhaps you can tell Jon how the "spire" remained standing if the top section crushed the rest of the buidling?

Well see there's the problem already. Half-truths baked into innuendo. The "spire" did not remaining standing did it? It also collapsed.

If "Jon" was wondering how this happened maybe he should spend ten minutes looking at the way these particular buildings were designed and constructed. Strong center core of columns acting as in union with an external shell to hold up the floor sections. Strip away the connecting floor sections and dismantle the external shell and the few remaining core columns are no longer stable, aggravate the situation by violently attacking the bases of the remaining columns with tons of steel falling from a height of almost a quarter-mile and you have failure.

A grade school kid could see that.

Thanks for posting the video. I have heated debates with an old friend over this and now I have a new section to show him.

reply to post by hooper


So...the spire survived the top section crushing all of the other columns around it?

How does that happen Hooper?

reply to post by turbofan


Its called chaos, it happens when you have a radically asymmetrical event like a plane crashing into a building. And its not a "spire", these weren't 13th century cathedrals. They were the remains of the center or core colmuns. Its hard to believe that this stuff needs to be explained.

reply to post by hooper


quote Strong center core of columns acting as in union with an external shell to hold up the floor sections. Strip away the connecting floor sections and dismantle the external shell and the few remaining core columns are no longer stable, aggravate the situation by violently attacking the bases of the remaining columns with tons of steel falling from a height of almost a quarter-mile and you have failure. end quote

This is not what happened IMHO and it does not fit with the video and testimony evidence. TO the OP, gonna have to watch the video sorry about the epic fail on my part on thread netiquette

I feel like a kid who walked in on their parents fighting.

Originally posted by hooper
And its not a "spire", these weren't 13th century cathedrals. They were the remains of the center or core colmuns. Its hard to believe that this stuff needs to be explained.

That's why spire was in quotes in the prior post Hoop, I'm full aware that they are core columns champ.

Thanks for the clarification though!

Let me know when you can provide a valid explanation of what happened; I don't buy your excuse. The top
section couldn't possibly have crushed 1000 feet of stronger, more massive material without breaking itself
apart.

Moreover, the upper block just doesn't magically leave a section of the core to stand as it "crushes" the
rest of the buidling...only to have the core telescope down seconds later by some unknown force.

Even a grade school kid knows that, right Hoop?

reply to post by turbofan

The top
section couldn't possibly have crushed 1000 feet of stronger, more massive material without breaking itself
apart.

Word choice. How was the section stronger and more massive? By what magnitude? Who said it crushed it? It didn't crush anything. The top half basically overloaded the connections and the building came apart. Thats why there were all those bits and pieces all over ground zero, not just a load of dust.

Face it, I'm right and everyone knows it, hence, no groundswell for a new investigation.

You think it was CD - prove the CD then.

reply to post by hooper


I see...I guess the upper block opened up the sunroof section and let the core columns poke through?

Of course nothing was crushed...dust just appears for no reason according to your 'collapse theory'.

How do you explain the dust if nothing was crushed? If the connections just failed, then what force knocked
down the remaining core columns?

How does a section of the core columns just telescope STRAIGHT down, instead of tipping over?

Oh wait, this all happened on 9/11 and a new sort of science happened that day. Silly me.

reply to post by turbofan


Still the same old stuff rebottled in a slide show. Claim thermite and use thermate with evidence for neither. Assume melted steel. Show little iron-containing spheres from flyash, welding, concrete, and claim thermite. I see he's been promoted to a PhD from a PE. If he followed his Sherlock Holmes story line, he would conclude that the planes and fires did it.
I will wait for the criminal indictments of the culprits. Apparently, one guilty party has been identified already.

I have never heard of any building collapsing at free fall speed other than it being a CD. If someone can provide a video or an example of a building accident where it collapses without any resistance from the floors below it I will happily, HAPPILY, reconsider my stance on 9/11.

Excellent video. S and F.

Thanks for posting.

The OS is on it's last legs and those who champion it are an ever decreasing minority. The hollowness of their arguments is becoming more and more emarrassing to witness.

reply to post by turbofan

I see...I guess the upper block opened up the sunroof section and let the core columns poke through?

You got it.

Of course nothing was crushed...dust just appears for no reason according to your 'collapse theory'.

Just some of the concrete floor slabs and the wallboard.

How do you explain the dust if nothing was crushed? If the connections just failed, then what force knocked down the remaining core columns?

Some of the concrete floor slabs and acres of wallboard.

How does a section of the core columns just telescope STRAIGHT down, instead of tipping over?

They did a little bit of both. Not magic. Everyone else seems to understand, can't figure out what problem you have.

Oh wait, this all happened on 9/11 and a new sort of science happened that day. Silly me.

Yep, you are pretty silly. Silly questions. Really - why does one thing fall over and another fall down? Its like you never experienced gravity before.

yeah man, structures telescope straight down by gravity instead of tip over in fantasy land all the time.

Thanks Hoop!

Originally posted by turbofan
yeah man, structures telescope straight down by gravity instead of tip over in fantasy land all the time.

Thanks Hoop!

Well thats exactly what if did. Look at the video. By the way, gravity likes to work in a straight line. Always has, always will.

ummm surrrre.... but structures like to tip over, not suddenly dis-assemble and fall straight to the ground after swaying
in the wind.

Maybe you can tell everyone what magical force unbolted the core columns and allowed them to fall
straight down?

(I can't believe I'm debating this; do you actually believe your own sh@t dude?)

reply to post by turbofan

ummm surrrre.... but structures like to tip over, not suddenly dis-assemble and fall straight to the ground after swaying
in the wind.

No they don't like to tip over. Not until you move their center of gravity beyond the limits of their connecting points.

Maybe you can tell everyone what magical force unbolted the core columns and allowed them to fall
straight down?

The magical force of half a million tons of steel and concrete falling on it from upwards of a 1000' That will put a serious dent in those core column connections.

(I can't believe I'm debating this; do you actually believe your own sh@t dude?)

You know of course, I am far from alone on this. Pretty much me and the rest of the human population.