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

reply to post by bsbray11


"Who are you calling a "hobbyist"? Jonathan Cole is a career engineer himself, not that it would make any difference considering he shows you in the video everything he does so you can try it yourself."

Try it yourself, that's the whole point, the same goes for individuals with the knowhow to test the ground zero dust, that's what these people are asking others to do, I've said that in other related threads. John Cole has proven his point to his satisfaction, and in a way that makes NG a bit of a tit. The long wrangle about the core still standing for a while I think is a pretty moot point if all the corners and the outer columns were compromised by any kind of demolition device at points down to at least near ground level, and in any case it ultimately fell in both towers, neither were prescision collapses initially, even the north tower lost a huge chunk off to the side as can be seen in this video, (can some Newyorker tell me the direction) it suggests that the yoke tieing the four corners could not bear down on everything below uniformly and that a great percentage of the falling weight went out laterally without a crushing effect below.

www.youtube.com...

some segments show remains that also then collapse, although it is hard to say whether it is part of the core or outer columns, or both?? in all ways, it begs that an independant investigation is needed.

reply to post by smurfy

Bsbray wasnt the one who called him a hobbyist. Interesting video tho. Thx for sharing!

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by smurfy

 

Bsbray wasnt the one who called him a hobbyist. Interesting video tho. Thx for sharing!

Hi Opt,
I know that, I was using Bsbray's correct quote as a finger to my post.

reply to post by R3KR


Google < Cheney and 911> He was running a military war game the very day and time and area that exactly mirrored the event that happened . I heard that he was conducting a military war game that very morning on the news radio , once and only once ! He denied being in control ,but Norman Mineta the Secretary Of Transportation swore before Congress that Cheney was in the Control Bunker where the event was being monitored . The alleged reason ; a "Pearl Harbor to get us into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban who opposed the Trans Afghan Natural gas Pipe line . Cheney and the Saudi King was said to be working together on that project thus the Saudi terrorist . You can also see that the Port Authority wanted to demolish the WTC because of "Asbestos " problems and being a costly white elephant and sought permits to do so but was denied . What is most interesting is that of the 4000 Jews that worked in the WTC very few came to work if any . Some with suspected Jewish names counted to be 140 were killed . The other thing is the Larry Silverstein 'Pull it " and collecting twice the insured value .

I'm still yet to see a conclusive WHY. The effect was spectacular and of course distracting from the true cause.
What is the true cause to do this????

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by bsbray11

 

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

After reading the government's assessments, my faith in the original analysis is even stronger.

Pardon me for asking;

410 experts were expected to review tens of thousands of documents, 7,000 photographs, 7,000 segments of video, and interview 1,000 people, and analyze 236 ‘pieces’ of steel- I don’t know how many months this hypothesis took to render to the people.

Myself, I would feel rather over-whelmed to have to go through so much material and have a deadline to submit my report by…did these experts have a deadline?

It only makes sense to have certain experts review certain items in concert, so that all the material gets looked into ‘equally’ as I would expect no stone left un-turned.

Are you following me?

Academia= Dr. Steven Jones, was he one of these 410 experts? And when he submitted his findings, then what? Maybe Dr. Jones did an independent study on the university’s nickel. No sense in arguing that point.

I’m making the bold claim that there was too much material to go through by such a limited number of experts willing to come up with the same conclusion, in the end being as the result we’re expected to eat. That kind of crap is for mushrooms. Are you a mushroom? Certainly, I am not.

edit on (12/21/1010 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by subtopia


Read the post above yours and you might find out .

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, but are you saying the floors are causing "air" to be forced violently out of random windows before they are smashed into, or after they are smashed into?

Ahem, in one of my posts I said that due to structural failure on lower floors there could be a collapse of ceiling paneling, maybe in random places. You have shock waves racing down the beams, sure as hell that shakes things up and causes them to fall. The ceiling is almost always suspended from the concrete. It can break apart and fall down. I did that sort of construction myself.

Open the whole top of the plastic bag, and let air escape there at the same time, and see if it does the same thing. If you don't have an air-tight container you can't build up pressure. There is no two ways about that, unless you don't understand the physics of what we are talking about.

Unless you are a world renowned physics guru or at least a university professor, I doubt you have the clout or right to doubt my physics credentials.

You can have a container with holes and still build pressure if compression is fast enough. If you don't see that you have no business posting here.

Well you said it yourself, you don't know a satisfactory answer. Parts of ceiling paneling coming down will rocket dust and solid debris out hundreds of feet into the air, yeah right.

Yeah right. If you calculate the mass that's being dropped and the respective energy released (I know it's a challenge for you) you would see that a blown out window spewing a plume of dust and debris is not anything abnormal.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, but are you saying the floors are causing "air" to be forced violently out of random windows before they are smashed into, or after they are smashed into?

Ahem, in one of my posts I said that due to structural failure on lower floors there could be a collapse of ceiling paneling, maybe in random places. You have shock waves racing down the beams, sure as hell that shakes things up and causes them to fall. The ceiling is almost always suspended from the concrete. It can break apart and fall down. I did that sort of construction myself.

Right, so you avoid my question to answer something else.

Again, you are saying that something falling from the ceiling is sending a dust cloud and solid debris over a hundred feet out laterally into the air, explosively? And this is caused by paneling falling from the ceiling? Is this more Looney Tunes physics?

Open the whole top of the plastic bag, and let air escape there at the same time, and see if it does the same thing. If you don't have an air-tight container you can't build up pressure. There is no two ways about that, unless you don't understand the physics of what we are talking about.

Unless you are a world renowned physics guru or at least a university professor, I doubt you have the clout or right to doubt my physics credentials.

You're doing plenty on your own to demonstrate your "physics credentials." And appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, just to emphasize the fact.

You can have a container with holes and still build pressure if compression is fast enough. If you don't see that you have no business posting here.

Compression by what, a loose rain of pulverized concrete and shreds of steel trusses that was flying in all directions?

What happened to the air-tight container you were trying to establish? You abandon that flaming bus already?




This is what your first quote of me was originally referring to before you changed subjects entirely and abandoned your attempts to establish an air-tight container consisting of entire floors, to go on about ceiling panels instead:

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain the following:

1) How does air pressure accumulate when the floors are being destroyed so violently that solid debris, dust and gases are escaping constantly to the atmosphere outside?

That's because a particular floor structure does exist in more or less solid form for a while, before it gets smashed against the other.

Right, but are you saying the floors are causing "air" to be forced violently out of random windows before they are smashed into, or after they are smashed into?

That was the question you avoided you to go on ranting about how you think a falling ceiling panel caused this, as quoted at the beginning of this post:




Here is what the ceiling panels looked like inside the WTC:



Ceiling panels falling loose, causing those outbursts? Enough said as far as I care....


The only way you're keeping this "argument" going is by repeatedly ignoring every other fact in my posts when you respond to each specific question. I ask what was air tight, you start talking about falling ceiling tiles causing massive expulsions many feet out into the air, ignoring the claim of whole floors causing air compression. Then you turn right back around as if nothing just happened and start talking about massive air pressure being built up again by defending it with an appeal to authority. I feel like I am debating a schizophrenic who has yet to put together all the pieces of exactly what s/he is talking about into one concise image.

Well you said it yourself, you don't know a satisfactory answer. Parts of ceiling paneling coming down will rocket dust and solid debris out hundreds of feet into the air, yeah right.

Yeah right. If you calculate the mass that's being dropped and the respective energy released (I know it's a challenge for you) you would see that a blown out window spewing a plume of dust and debris is not anything abnormal.

Well since I am way too incompetent to estimate the mass of a ceiling panel as shown above, and then its potential gravitational energy after a 10-foot drop, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us how it managed to rocket out all the crap seen in the above photo like some Disney cartoon? Because I'm not buying it, you can keep that cock and bull theory for yourself.



And we have to go through all of this.... because you are really that convinced that what is shown in the OP could not possibly have been the real cause of these ejections?

reply to post by bsbray11

Well since I am way too incompetent to estimate the mass of a ceiling panel as shown above, and then its potential gravitational energy after a 10-foot drop, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us how it managed to rocket out all the crap seen in the above photo like some Disney cartoon? Because I'm not buying it, you can keep that cock and bull theory for yourself

I can answer that...
Ceiling panels that are already present will NOT affect the air pressure if they fall because they are already taking up space/air..
So there falling has zero effect on the pressure in the room...

The only way they could, and it would be minimal, would be if they all fell together starting at the furthest point from the windows/puffs..

A very unlikely scenario that would still not cause the blowout...

reply to post by bsbray11


So your are saying is that a big layer of compressed floors plus top section has no air resistance at all and would not build up any pressure? It seems to me you only come to that conclusion because it fits your predetermined position, but it is nonsense of course. It may not be airtight but there is a whole world between airtight and completely open.

reply to post by bsbray11


It's been a while, friend. Another great example showing what could very well have happened back on 9/11. That Nat Geo crap was complete BS, and, even if a lot of us already knew that, this one video speaks wonders. It's a real shame this type of stuff isn't made public in some form...information like this could make a real difference, or at least get everyones attention.

On a side note, I think it would be interesting to be one of the Mod's on this site...I'm curious to see how many of these guys have multiple accounts on ATS...every decent thread gets flooded with the same crap to the point that it can be predicted, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are really only 3 "debunkers", or whatever you want to call them, that post here, but they do it using 200 various user names. It's a real shame. Guys like Pteradine (sp?), who seem to be intelligent, have spent months and months, if not YEARS, on the ATS boards for the sole purpose of derailing threads like this. I would imagine most individuals would have something better to do with their time.

In any case, star and flag

Originally posted by -PLB-
So your are saying is that a big layer of compressed floors

BZZT.

I'm saying this "big layer of compressed floors," like some air-tight piston coming down, did not exist!

If you have evidence of a big air-tight, massive piston-like surface coming down, I'm all eyes and ears. But all I'm seeing is pulverized concrete, chunks and shreds of steel, aluminum, etc. It's all either raining down or being ejected in all directions in a very, very loose state. That isn't air-tight. When those massive chunks of steel and those tiny particles of concrete dust are flying around, air is going right through that crap! That's what I'm saying. Based on your post here I'm not sure you even understand what "air-tight" means. It means to accumulate air pressure you have to trap the air and push it all into a smaller spot first; that's how you build pressure, like when you keep pumping air into the confined space of a tire. Concrete dust and steel flying everywhere is the least similar thing to a tire. Thanks for trying though.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It means to accumulate air pressure

.

This is a truther falsehood.

No great accumulation of air pressure is necessary to have dust and heavier objects being blown through the windows. Any strong wind will blow debris around. Stronger winds will blow heavier objects. Bazant did an analysis of this and got some pretty high numbers.

Only air flow is needed. And something the size of a football field, even if it's pourous, can create the amount of airflow needed to force debris out the windows and down elevator shafts.

BTW, I'd be interested in reading your source of the core survivors being sucked up. Every testimony I've read from them - from the fire fighters for example - says that the wind was at their back and pushed them down, not up.

reply to post by bsbray11


If your think is that something is either airtight or totally resistless to air there isn't much further to discuss. I can only point out that you are wrong in this.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

It means to accumulate air pressure

This is a truther falsehood.

No great accumulation of air pressure is necessary to have dust and heavier objects being blown through the windows. Any strong wind will blow debris around. Stronger winds will blow heavier objects. Bazant did an analysis of this and got some pretty high numbers.

Your slip is showing again "Joey." Wind is caused by differences in air pressure. It's caused by the air from a high-pressure area rushing to fill in a lower-pressure area. WHOOPS.

Here's a simple page where you can educate yourself on this before having to post any more of this nonsense born of ignorance: www.wxdude.com...

BTW, I'd be interested in reading your source of the core survivors being sucked up. Every testimony I've read from them - from the fire fighters for example - says that the wind was at their back and pushed them down, not up.

www.greaterthings.com...

However, the survivors in Stairway B did not experience a downward wind. They experienced a very strong upward wind. ...

Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was somewhere around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse. He described the wind as being "fierce" and that it almost lifted his body.

There's plenty on that page for you to read, too.


Take your time educating yourself before you blast off more fallacies, and save us both a little trouble why don't you?

Originally posted by -PLB-
If your think is that something is either airtight or totally resistless to air there isn't much further to discuss. I can only point out that you are wrong in this.

You were the one trying to say the floors were "layers" that were driving the air down like some solid piston.

After having that whole bogus theory ripped apart, no, I don't guess I did leave you with much to discuss.

I know you have faith but you can keep that to yourself. Also you might want to check out the testimonies I just posted for "Joey" (aka "ThroatYogurt," aka "CameronFox") above.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
On a side note, I think it would be interesting to be one of the Mod's on this site...I'm curious to see how many of these guys have multiple accounts on ATS...

"CameronFox" (banned) ----> "ThroatYogurt" (banned) -----> "Joey Canoli" (not banned yet)

Originally posted by bsbray11
You were the one trying to say the floors were "layers" that were driving the air down like some solid piston.

I can't recall I ever tried to say that. If I did I will retract that and replace by the argument that the pile of rubble falling down was dense enough to build up enough pressure to cause the observed effects.

After having that whole bogus theory ripped apart, no, I don't guess I did leave you with much to discuss.

I know you have faith but you can keep that to yourself. Also you might want to check out the testimonies I just posted for "Joey" (aka "ThroatYogurt," aka "CameronFox") above.

edit on 22-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

It isn't really ripped apart. Falling down rubble that is rather compressed doesn't let that much air through. Thats why we see much of the air blowing sideways.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

It means to accumulate air pressure

This is a truther falsehood.

No great accumulation of air pressure is necessary to have dust and heavier objects being blown through the windows. Any strong wind will blow debris around. Stronger winds will blow heavier objects. Bazant did an analysis of this and got some pretty high numbers.

Wind is caused by differences in air pressure. It's caused by the air from a high-pressure area rushing to fill in a lower-pressure area.

Yep.

Nothing you say discredits what I said. I said, "No great accumulation of air pressure is necessary....."

GREAT being the key word. A very porous object can generate wind. Like say, a tennis racket. Very porous, agreed? Swing it and you get an airflow generation, agreed? And yet, no one rational would suggest that it is airtight, and therefore can't generate airflow.

But your argument says that the descending debris wasn't airthight and therefore can't geerate enough airflow to expel heavy debris.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can't recall I ever tried to say that. If I did I will retract that and replace by the argument that the pile of rubble falling down was dense enough to build up enough pressure to cause the observed effects.

That "pile of rubble" was flying out of the buildings in all directions, did you notice that? When you bust the stuff up, it's automatically not going to blanket the same space as effectively as an air-tight container. But then on top of that it's expanding its total area by flying outwards in all directions, and you still think it's managing to push so much air downwards as to cause these violent ejections?

Even if you manage to convince yourself of that, you're ignoring everything else I've posted. The air vents being in the core, the fact that the pressure would have to be pushed down so many floors before making a 90 degree change of direction, and then instead of spreading out across a whole floor it rockets towards a thin area of the exterior.... Remember all that? Remember the fact that it ISN'T just air, even all those floors below? It's dust and debris being blown out too? So you're also saying all the debris and dust was being blown down so many floors ahead through the air vents too? Or are you still saying those little ceiling panels are falling 20+ floors below the collapse and causing all this violence? That's fine, you can believe that. I don't guess you ever calculated the amount of energy one of them falling would produce though.

Even NIST says in their report, as shown in the video of the OP, that they can't explain all of these events. It's because they realize some of what I'm posting too, and know they don't have a cure-all explanation for this stuff flying out from all over the buildings.

Falling down rubble that is rather compressed doesn't let that much air through.

These are fuzzy, unquantified words: "rather compressed," "that much air through." When I see massive pieces of steel and literally tons of dust flying through the air, I have a good idea that air wouldn't have that much trouble getting through, so I personally fail to see whether you are getting these "rather compressed" and 'not much air getting through' ideas are coming from.

Do you want to just agree to disagree buddy?