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

reply to post by bsbray11


So when you imagine a universal collapse in your mind, you see the debris piling nicely on top of itself until it falls off from not having enough balance? Should the building have just sheered off from the rest of the beams and hit the ground? What SHOULD have happened?

See, in my mind, when I see all this material hitting the floors below it and breaking them off their hinges, I see a progressive amount of kinetic energy that can't be stopped by anything but the earth itself. Half the floor is impacted, the rest of the floor collapses. The debris pummels downward onto the next floors, destroying and accumulating more weight and keeping its destructive energy all the way down. As half a floor collapses inside the building, before the upward destruction hits it, the air is easily expelled out of a broken window or more, shooting out blasted concrete and other debris.

Apparently my mind is "different" from the omniscience shown by multitudes of truthers on this board. Things are obviously a black and white, block hits block situation.

reply to post by OptimistPrime

airplanes and helicopters are no longer made of magnesium. aluminum has no ability to burn, only ball up and solidify once temperature is lost. 90% of all new airplane air frames and skins are made from aluminum and some titanium with very little steel involved. the weight of aluminum hasn't enough weight once its been shredded to do anything let alone rip chips out of concrete. all the energy was lost at impact and the only things that continued on were motors and wheel gear and that wouldn't have been enough to gut the overall support structure of the central core supports.
aluminum has barely enough heat in it when in a liquid state to melt plastic let alone set anything on fire. diesel fuel hasn't enough heat even in concentration to maintain enough heat to liquefy aluminum so the whole aluminum points are completely moot and irrelevant to this investigation.....SERIOUSLY

reply to post by Varemia

Apparently my mind is "different" from the omniscience shown by multitudes of truthers on this board. Things are obviously a black and white, block hits block situation.

Why don’t you explain what the different is between this demolition and the WTC 7 demolition? If WTC 7 fell all by it’s self without the help of demolition, then why was there free fall involved? A normal collapse would have resistance, correct?

Controlled Demolition of 30-Story Landma…

www.myspace.com...

reply to post by OptimistPrime

its true that the buildings were just giant open shells with large gap air pockets in between them, and this is why it cant be understood as to why all the floors just didn't stack one on top another as the building fell without pulverization. the goddamn thing must have been made out of vermiculite

Originally posted by Varemia
So when you imagine a universal collapse in your mind, you see the debris piling nicely on top of itself until it falls off from not having enough balance?

Are you sure you're responding to the right person? I was actually just suggesting the exact opposite.

Should the building have just sheered off from the rest of the beams and hit the ground? What SHOULD have happened?

What "should" have happened depends on the explanation being considered, doesn't it?

See, in my mind, when I see all this material hitting the floors below it and breaking them off their hinges, I see a progressive amount of kinetic energy that can't be stopped by anything but the earth itself. Half the floor is impacted, the rest of the floor collapses. The debris pummels downward onto the next floors, destroying and accumulating more weight and keeping its destructive energy all the way down. As half a floor collapses inside the building, before the upward destruction hits it, the air is easily expelled out of a broken window or more, shooting out blasted concrete and other debris.

Yeah, yeah, a big "pancaking" effect of all the mass going straight down and barreling straight to the Earth.

Problem is, where is the huge pile of footprint-centered debris here?




Shouldn't the majority of the mass be sitting in the footprint according to your theory?




You see the debris isn't even stacked higher than the so-called "tree columns" that identify the ground-level lobbies of the Twin Towers.

The debris was thrown in all directions roughly equally.






I'm not sure you're even really keeping up with what we are talking about anyway. We are talking about the fact that the "collapsing" region in the buildings was not airtight and would have left massive areas for the air to be sucked right out into the open atmosphere, before ever having to destroy hurricane-proof windows as if they were the "path of least resistance," which they most definitely were not. Also the expulsions were occurring 20+ floors down, it wasn't just air but dust and solid debris coming out, etc., but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Each of these is an independent problem with this theory in its own right. The first thing you have to do is demonstrate how air pressure could be accumulated in the first place in this environment, where you are dealing with a huge dissociated mass of concrete dust and steel shards that is being ejected from the buildings in all directions.

Apparently my mind is "different" from the omniscience shown by multitudes of truthers on this board. Things are obviously a black and white, block hits block situation.

"Block-hits-block" is exactly what OS trusters like "pteridine" and "okbmd" are suggesting, so you have that backwards. I'm NOT saying that, I'm saying it was a huge complex mess that left enormous holes for air to escape, which is freaking obvious considering the massive amount of concrete dust (suspended in AIR remember) and huge chunks of steel had no problem escaping from the same areas. And yet these people are the ones saying that the air really didn't have anywhere to go but down, that somehow these places where the dust and steel were escaping were off-limits for the air or some other insane idea, because the floors were somehow neatly stacking in such a way as to remained relatively sealed apparently.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

If the floors were collapsing sequentially, the compressed air would be below them as they collapsed. The bolts holding the floor joists would fail and the outer columns would peel away at or above the instantaneous collapse point. The trapped air could only escape between the floor pans and the outer columns and through the remains of the core/elevator shafts. Each floor would have more or less of a vent area depending on stairwell/elevator door positions and the proximity of the floor pan edges to the peeling outer columns. These same open/closed doors would distribute flow throughout the building. As in any other flow system, pressure would be distributed throughout but in this case the flows would be changing on an instantaneous basis as pathways were created and destroyed during the collapse. It is entirely conceivable that sufficient pressue was available to burst windows and that the pathways would allow unexpected pathways that burst windows multiple floors below the collapse point.
Had these been caused by explosives, you would have likely noticed more than just a few random puffs of dust and broken glass.

I'm not buying this one. According to your theory, descent of the whole building should have been slower, not at near free fall speeds. With all the webbing of post tension used in reinforced concrete along with the subordinate trusses supporting the inside core to the outer retaining walls using redundant reinforcement, you'd think an untainted fall of a building (2 times) of that magnitude should have revealed some variation in its characteristic free fall descent. But no, their descent mirrored each other. Don't get me started on bldg. 7...

reply to post by aliengenes


Thank you for backing my claims, but it seems you have me confused. I was merely stating That this magic super heated beyond laws of elemental physics did a lot of damage. Trusters make some outrageous claims right? I was merely entertaining those claims for a moment. I in no way buy for 1 iota of a second that a plane made of aluminum could generate enough heat to bring a building down, let alone 2 (the building it crashed into along with building 7), cause floors to stack neatly and cause enough pressure to blow out windows 20 floors underneath it, and keep the rubble pile extremely hot for months. I think there is a better chance of pissing off the pope then making me swallow that load of you know what thats called the OS. It is really a shame that Pteridine is on the other side, he is a very intelligent individual, but his stubbornness is hindering that.

the entire inner core of the buildings had to have been shot in sequence as the buildings were coming down without notice, in order to cause a state of pulverization as the piston affect of the free fall expelled all the interior out. there just wasn't enough weight from the upper floors to break loose every single tie and column all the way to the ground and pulverize and expel all the inner building. its feasibly impossible without more than just an airliner strike.

if that is the case, that both those buildings did in fact come down by single strikes by those airliners, then the engineers and the city of new york needs to be suede for the deaths of 3500 people, plus the billions it cost the tax payer to clean up, and every single sky scraper in new york must be required to double their insurance so the American people are never required to have to clean up anyone's mess again. doesn't matter how they came down, the city and engineers are to blame according to their formulas and their inspection certifications.

sometimes when people write its difficult to understand whose on what side, even including myself. i have to look at things from my own personal experiences and perspective when it comes to this specific event and correlate all the data into a working model, and all the evidence points specifically to a well orchestrated multitask group government inside job.

Pteridine definitely needs to learn some real world practical application instead of learning everything from books or what he reads online, then he would understand the workings of materials and their strengths and weaknesses in real world terms.

hes worse than a jail house lawyer

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by bsbray11

 

All you people cannot seem to grasp the fact that the windows were not the path of least resistance. A massive, massive open are where the building as being blown apart -- was the path of least resistance.

Stop and think about what you are saying . The "massive , massive open area" , was AT or ABOVE the point of collapse initiation .

Therefore ................. , there is MASS , whether it be in the form of a single floor , several floors , or the remains of such floor(s) , that is BETWEEN the massive open area , and the ejections that you see .

So , are you saying that the path of least resistance would be up and through thousands of tons of material , or would it be through some window panes ?

In my opinion , this part of your argument holds no merit .

I hope you aren't one of the many individuals who claim to be physics experts here. If you aren't able to grasp what he is saying, you should probably stop posting here.

The path of least resistance would absolutely be up and through the "thousands of tons of material". You are aware that those "thousands of tons of material" were reduced to dust right? Even if they were still solid pieces of steel, which I'm sure some were, they were no longer intact, and they certainly would not provide more resistance than sealed windows.

I'm fairly certain your purpose here is to derail with senseless posts, and to your credit, you do a great job. Unfortunately, even someone like myself who has not even taken "Physics 101" can see through your bs.

Take it somewhere else.

reply to post by bsbray11


The debunkers are starting to act more insane and bizzare

First they claim the official story of kerosene being able to melt firegrad structural steel support columns

Now they are trying to say thermate/thermite cant melt steel?

Is anyone seeing the big problem with this picture?

Perhaps addressing the brainwashing of defending every aspect of the official story would be helpful, because no matter what science is put forward the debunkers always seem to come up with some cliche stupid excuse!

Lol this is still up for debate? It has to be tiring carrying on this debate over and over. Face it. The majority can't handle the truth and ptredine etc. are just a taste of how 50% of the US feel. Ask them about the new episode of lost or CSI. That is what they are interested in, not justice. You think we won the first revolution with a majority?

The media owns their brains. You can't buy or trade for them. Just accept they are lost and work with what we have. Logic and intelligence is always a minority, need 1 strong person to stand up, that's it.

Hell, if you really want to debate with these people, why not bring Sir Issac Newton or Albert Einstein into the debate. Anyone with a low college level physics education can smash a debate. Still wont change the brainwashed brains. *shrug*

Planes hit buildings, sprayed magical pixy dust into them which made fire hotter, steel weak, and buildings fall fast and at random. Saw it on CSI: Investigations unit, it's a true story.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11

 

So when you imagine a universal collapse in your mind, you see the debris piling nicely on top of itself until it falls off from not having enough balance? Should the building have just sheered off from the rest of the beams and hit the ground? What SHOULD have happened?

See, in my mind, when I see all this material hitting the floors below it and breaking them off their hinges, I see a progressive amount of kinetic energy that can't be stopped by anything but the earth itself. Half the floor is impacted, the rest of the floor collapses. The debris pummels downward onto the next floors, destroying and accumulating more weight and keeping its destructive energy all the way down. As half a floor collapses inside the building, before the upward destruction hits it, the air is easily expelled out of a broken window or more, shooting out blasted concrete and other debris.

Apparently my mind is "different" from the omniscience shown by multitudes of truthers on this board. Things are obviously a black and white, block hits block situation.

What material did you see hitting the floors below ?? Ahh yes you saw some in your mind. Apparently you see amazing things and even consider that the building is angry and destroying itself in an upward motion... and when the buildings were still standing erect and nothing had yet moved what was causing all that smoke and blasting the concrete,, geee maybe its those BLASTED explosives...

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by Atione
reply to post by bsbray11

 

The debunkers are starting to act more insane and bizzare

First they claim the official story of kerosene being able to melt firegrad structural steel support columns

Now they are trying to say thermate/thermite cant melt steel?

Is anyone seeing the big problem with this picture?

Perhaps addressing the brainwashing of defending every aspect of the official story would be helpful, because no matter what science is put forward the debunkers always seem to come up with some cliche stupid excuse!

And some people have given you stars ? !

I have genuinely lost count of posts pointing out to truthers that no steel had to melt; but be weakened. It is some truthers who cannot seem to get their heads round that.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
This only brings up new mysteries, like how the terrorists got thermite inside of the columns, and how they got a hold of nanothermite. Who would have access to a high tech US military grade explosive?

perhaps you should read the new thread about 4 ART STUDENTS (conspiracytheorists are jumping to MOSSAD conclusions) LIVED in the 90th floor (both towers exploded at ~ the 90th floor) doing construction work..........in 2001 prior to 9/11

Originally posted by Alfie1
I have genuinely lost count of posts pointing out to truthers that no steel had to melt; but be weakened. It is some truthers who cannot seem to get their heads round that.

You haven't read FEMA appendix C. There was melted steel, melted by a "high temperature corrosive attack" if I remember the phrase correctly, that involved a "liquid eutectic consisting primarily of iron" and some other elements, notably sulfur. Ring any bells there Alfie? Nooo, nooooo of course not. Anyway it's there for anyone who actually wants to know these things.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Anyone who looks back through the posts will see you're the one butchering witness testimony that I originally posted, and then began completely omitting parts of it and are now just making accusations towards me.

How am I ommitting anything?

I agree that Kross said that he was nearly lifted off his feet by the wind. But is also a fact that he never says that the wind was blowing UP the stairwell. You cannot and will not even attempt to show your source's claim to be a conclusive interpretation of the wind.

Indeed, your source admits that Jonas' statements say that the wind was blowing down.

I have given conclusive evidence that Komorowski was indeed lifted off his feet and blown downward, not by any interpretation of what he said, but by direct quote. This is stronger evidence that your source.

David Lim agrees with Komorowski and states that Komorowski flew down the stairs over his head. Your source is wrong when he says that Lim's testimony is inconclusive, since he didn't include the nymag interview.

So what conclusive statements do we have to evaluate?

1) both Komorowski and Kross use nearly identical language to indicate what effect the wind had on them. They both describe being lifted off their feet.

2) Komorowski and Jonas clearly say the wind blew down the stairwell. Lim gives testimont that Komorowski flew over his head.

3) nowhere do we have any direct statement that the wind blew UP the stairwell.

The only conclusion is that the wind blew down the stairwell, since your source's claim can only be supported by ignoring both Komorowski's and Jonas's clear statements about the wind direction, ignoring Lim's corroborating statements in nymag and stating that his statement in the book mentioned makes him an inconclusive witness, and mentioning a statement from Jim McLean - who I cannot find mentioned as being a survivor in stairwell B - as saying the wind blew upwards.

This is the type of claim from a truther that the rational on this side of the fence live for. It is easily debunkable, and proven to be wrong.

It also proves to any lukers just exactly how the truth movement comes to its conclusions about 9/11. They ignore clear and conclusive evidence that refutes their erroneous conclusions in favor of continuing their lunacy.

Thank you for providing this stellar example.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Anyone who looks back through the posts will see you're the one butchering witness testimony that I originally posted, and then began completely omitting parts of it and are now just making accusations towards me.

How am I ommitting anything?

I agree that Kross said that he was nearly lifted off his feet by the wind. But is also a fact that he never says that the wind was blowing UP the stairwell.

lift
   /lɪft/ Show Spelled[lift] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to move or bring (something) upward from the ground or other support to a higher position; hoist.
2.
to raise or direct upward: He lifted his arm in a gesture of farewell; to lift one's head.

dictionary.reference.com...

You want to say "lift" and "blown down" mean the same thing. Not according to the dictionary; they are completely contrary directions. I'm a native speaker of English myself. What's stopping you from going back to stalking Richard Gage? You snowed in or something? Out of gas money? Did Gage stomp your pride one too many times by showing you for what you are for everyone to see?

I'm ignoring you from now on "ImAPepper"/"Joey Canoli"/etc etc etc..... You are trolling out of some personal issue I wouldn't understand and none of your "arguments" are the least bit serious.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11

 

So when you imagine a universal collapse in your mind, you see the debris piling nicely on top of itself until it falls off from not having enough balance? Should the building have just sheered off from the rest of the beams and hit the ground? What SHOULD have happened?

See, in my mind, when I see all this material hitting the floors below it and breaking them off their hinges, I see a progressive amount of kinetic energy that can't be stopped by anything but the earth itself. Half the floor is impacted, the rest of the floor collapses. The debris pummels downward onto the next floors, destroying and accumulating more weight and keeping its destructive energy all the way down. As half a floor collapses inside the building, before the upward destruction hits it, the air is easily expelled out of a broken window or more, shooting out blasted concrete and other debris.

Apparently my mind is "different" from the omniscience shown by multitudes of truthers on this board. Things are obviously a black and white, block hits block situation.

really?...apparently the fact that this type of building failure has NEVER occured in a steal-reinforced concrete building in the entire history of contruction in the entire world, but 3 buildings in new york, one not even hit by a plane, came down at the same speed, in the same configuration, within hours of each other, does not seem...uhhmm...strange to you? wow...