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

reply to post by jimmyx


Yeah, I know right? For the first time in history, two towers of the same design were hit by the same kind of plane, and the same thing happened to both towers! It's unbelievable, right? After all, a building that was hit by projectile debris and burned for seven hours also collapsed. That's just unthinkable! ((Please understand that this was severe sarcasm))

reply to post by Varemia


Please give a credible source and, or clear photo of this alleged damaged done to WTC 7? The NIST report doesn’t support your allegations, event though their report was proven a fraud.

reply to post by Varemia


if out of 299 buildings that were hit by planes and caught fire for extended periods of time, only 3 all on the same day collapsed, that is a factual inconsistency

Your problem isn't that you don't believe something different, it's that you believe something asinine.

If FOX news told you the sky was falling, you would look out your window. That is the truth. Enjoy your ignorance, it is bliss, I'd trade using my brain for sitting back with a diet coke and a bowl of noddles any day. It hurts to think about reality.


*Here a coloring book, it's albert einstein making a pizza, he invented it* Saw it on CNN, your an idiot, back to weeds on blueray, yay yay!

reply to post by Ciphor


I don't watch the news. It's stupid and it gives me headaches.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Varemia

 

Please give a credible source and, or clear photo of this alleged damaged done to WTC 7? The NIST report doesn’t support your allegations, event though their report was proven a fraud.

Oh my goodness gracious I cannot even believe you are saying that. It's been posted hundreds, if not thousands of times. There was very visible damage on the corner of the building.

Check page 17
Google PDF of NIST's WTC 7 Report

And this link includes many references to the damage as well as firefighter reports from the New York Times and such. Make sure you scroll down and not just read the first paragraph:
www.debunking911.com...

It would be crazy not to accept that there was severe damage to WTC 7.

reply to post by Varemia


Sorry but damage to one side of a building will not cause a global symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, with all four outer walls on top of the debris pile. All four walls being ON TOP of the debris pile is the evidence the building landed in it's own footprint. You can't argue this, pictures prove it.

This has been argued over and over again but people still ignore physics. Causing a building to implode and land in its footprint using explosives is the most difficult CD there is. Do you really expect asymmetrical damage and fires to do it?

I already explained in a previous post why that is not possible, page 22.

Once again, I hope you pay attention this time...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Pay special attention to the parts I balded, then use some logic.

reply to post by Varemia


www.debunking911.com...

Fact: debunking911.com is a well documented disinformation website that is mostly opinionated to support the OS, nice try. Is this all you have?

Oh my goodness gracious I cannot even believe you are saying that. It's been posted hundreds, if not thousands of times. There was very visible damage on the corner of the building.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True.
It has been posted hundreds of times that there are no clear visible photos showing any damage to WTC 7 perhaps you feel a shadowy photo covered with heavy smoke is evidence? I don’t think so. And for every eyewitness you can show that supports your OS I can give you credible eyewitness who tell a different story, such as NYC Police, NYC Firemen, and first responders. Read what the five hundred eyewitnesses had to say that went on record and the FBI buried their reports because these credible men and women were telling a very different story and it dose not support the lies and drivel that a few of you defend.

Oral Histories
Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions

911research.wtc7.net...

Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers

911research.wtc7.net...

Read every one of them then get back with me. Happy Holiday.

reply to post by ANOK


If you read the "disinformation site" as impressme calls it, you would know that it was not a perfect collapse into its footprint. It SOURCED ITS CLAIMS. Is that a conspiracy now too? Are you "truthers" really that insane?

You could see where WTC 7 actually fell southward onto another building, as well as there being damage to OTHER BUILDINGS around WTC 7 before it collapsed. Then, the firefighter reports, multitudes of firefighter reports. They're all lying, I guess, eh?

I can't even begin to fathom the logic in the brains of some people. It just blows me away that someone can be so obtuse.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

If you read the "disinformation site" as impressme calls it, you would know that it was not a perfect collapse into its footprint. It SOURCED ITS CLAIMS. Is that a conspiracy now too? Are you "truthers" really that insane?

You could see where WTC 7 actually fell southward onto another building, as well as there being damage to OTHER BUILDINGS around WTC 7 before it collapsed. Then, the firefighter reports, multitudes of firefighter reports. They're all lying, I guess, eh?

I can't even begin to fathom the logic in the brains of some people. It just blows me away that someone can be so obtuse.

I saw the whole damn thing fall vertical. You need a straightjacket. Mods kick this guy outta here.

lets imagine for a moment, you swinging an empty beer can as fast and as hard as you can on the top of a table. that's exactly what the airplanes were on 911, empty beer cans

Originally posted by Varemia

If you read the "disinformation site" as impressme calls it, you would know that it was not a perfect collapse into its footprint. It SOURCED ITS CLAIMS?

9-11myths is a disinfo site, we've been here long enough to make that conclusion.

If all four walls are on top of the debris pile, then it landed in its own footprint, period. That is the definition of 'in its own footprint'. I don't have to read any 9-11 website to know this, and I would advise you to stay away from 9-11 sites because they are nothing but the opinion of the author, not facts. Instead of addressing the problems they pretend they don't exist, if it's not in the NIST report it's not important. Physics is where the debunkers always fail.



Unless you are visually challenged there is no denying you can see the outer walls on top of the debris pile.
Even in a classic pancake collapse the outer walls fall down and outwards, path of least resistance. For the outer walls to end up on top of the building means the center of the building had to collapse first in a way that would allow space for the outer walls to fall inwards. If any part of the collapse didn't follow this pattern the outer walls would fall to the path of least resistance.

Controlled demolitions go wrong from the slightest mistake, yet you want us to believe an uncontrolled natural collapse could miraculously mimic an almost perfect implosion demolition. I have land to sell in Florida, interested?

You could see where WTC 7 actually fell southward onto another building, as well as there being damage to OTHER BUILDINGS around WTC 7 before it collapsed. Then, the firefighter reports, multitudes of firefighter reports. They're all lying, I guess, eh?

It didn't fall southwards into another building, pictures prove this. Also as I showed you in my last post, implosion demolitions are difficult to do, so if the collapse was not perfect it is no surprise, but the majority of the building landed in it's own footprint, impossible from a natural uncontrolled collapse.

I can't even begin to fathom the logic in the brains of some people. It just blows me away that someone can be so obtuse.

Back at ya! You fail to understand basic physics, and you fail in your ability to analyze the information we have and put the physics of it into context.

If you can explain how all four walls can end up ON TOP of the rest of the building after it has collapsed then I'll listen, but I won't be holding my breath.

Originally posted by Varemia
If you read the "disinformation site" as impressme calls it, you would know that it was not a perfect collapse into its footprint. It SOURCED ITS CLAIMS. Is that a conspiracy now too?

Wow, a source for something you can see for yourself in photographs?

A "perfect" collapse into its footprint? What in the hell is the relevance of that? How are you defining "perfect" in this context? Because not even KNOWN controlled demolitions fall "perfectly" into their footprints; that's why real-life engineers always include tolerances and margins of error in their calculations. "Perfect" in that way doesn't even exist except in theory.

You're in this way off your head. You jumped in thinking you already knew everything but you're just showing that you know nothing. If you come in without pre-formed opinions that you've already decided you're never going to back away from, you're no different than any religious fundamentalist or other political extremist, and those people are the insane nuts, moonbats, etc etc etc. What you are arguing is just as screwy, from screwball websites, in this case ran by a JREF troll that has no credentials or expertise to show anyway. And yet you'd poo-poo organizations of real-life professionals like AE911 I guess.


Before:




After:




"It's not perfectly in its footprint!!111" seems to be an argument that it can't be a controlled demolition because it's not perfect enough, no?

Can you show me any other demolition of a skyscraper that's been MORE perfect of a drop into its footprint than what you see here?


(No.)

reply to post by bsbray11


All you are is rhetoric. See it from another angle and say the same thing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c2a6b16c46f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Varemia
All you are is rhetoric. See it from another angle and say the same thing.

I don't see what's supposed to be so enlightening about this other photo of the same thing.

Are you trying to say if it was demolished, this 47-story building would be all nice and neatly contained within the 4 street intersections surrounding it, and nothing would fall over into the adjacent streets or hit adjacent buildings, because demolitions never do that? Is that what your argument is?

You are the one that's all rhetoric my friend. A one-sentence post and still you refuse to clarify what you are trying to say. Please stop thinking you already know everything. It's not true. I will admit a mistake when I make one.


Try to resist the urge to attack me personally in your next post, or at least if you do address what I am asking you too and don't just take the opportunity to cop-out. I asked you in my last post to show me a skyscraper demolition that was any neater than WTC7's and I notice you totally ignored that. When I ask you questions man, I'm not pissing in the wind you know.

Originally posted by Varemia

Controlled demolitions are not always perfect. In normal circumstances they would have done more to ensure the safety of other buildings, such as covering buildings with netting (or whatever they call it).

The majority of WTC7 landed in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being visible on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

If it had collapsed to one side, as you claim, then in theory only one wall would be on top of the debris pile. One would be under it, and the other two would have fallen down and out, to the path of least resistance, and there would be far more damage to other buildings.

The only way to get all the outer walls on top of the collapsed building is controlled implosion demolition, as I already explained but you seem to keep ignoring.

reply to post by Varemia


Building seven is not even in this picture it appears...

Originally posted by bsbray11

You want to say "lift" and "blown down" mean the same thing. Not according to the dictionary; they are completely contrary directions.

I love how you sling accusations around of me ignoring statements, all while ignoring Komorowski's statement. It is classic truther cognitive dissonance: ignore that which shatters your delusions and pretend like it doesn't exist.

This is obviously the case since you cannot and have not offered any reconciliation on the difference between you and your source's beliefs about the wind direction, and contrary statements from Komorowski and Jonas.

Merry Xmas to me and the rational for this fine example.

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.

This is also classic.

Just because Capt Obvious/ImaPepper/etc referred to you as Brian once, and I've read it, then that also means that I'm him too, just cuz I use your name occasionally.

Proof that you're not thinking rationally, but that what it takes in the first place to become a truther.

Verm Verm Verm are you still in here trying to debunk what is known to most people all around with your so called perfectionist theory of how a foot print should be in a 110 story steel structure which has never been done...now the closet demolition of this type in a steel building was the JL Hudson building in Detroit at a whopping 439 ft....now knowing that each story is approximately 10ft....pretty much standard calculation for a quick mention of height of a building to keep things simple for one such as yourself...cause i know how you like to keep things simple.




Now that being a proper demolition cause i am using simple terms here for your total lack of understanding falls into it's own footprint.....and wow it has a bit of errors but also take into account the windows were removed and also other buildings in the area were protected for debris fallout....hmmm now why protect the other builings when demolitions are so DAMNED perfect....strange that is.

now also take in account the fact that the photo you so proudly displayed was the fall out from the twin towers ...not building seven....(foolish)...it would seem to show how well the building did actually fall into it's footprint within margins of error which the perpetrators of 9/11 really would not have cared....but it shows that when you use demolition to deconstruct a building it does fall relatively straight down globally.

So thank you for that pic that you showed to try to debunk as it once again shows that your are trying to put out total disinformation which you should really be ashamed of and if you do not know what the word KARMA is you had better look it up cause it will come back and kick you right in your glorified behind.

Now the OP has shown through the VERY VERY informative youtube vid that...hmmm yes indeed themite could be used in many configurations and had a Effect that would have been acceptable in this demolition....Now also if people read a thread of mine on the Who done it ...It shows people who had the knowledge to perform such acts of treason against citizens of the US...and people who are in denial should be ashamed to be US citizens cause they are leading their fellow Americans into the slaughter....I am proud of all the Truthers out there who work hard ...continuosly and at great peril to themselves and their own personal rights as human beings for being defiant to TPTB and are willing to keep on searching for the truth even though a great many of us know the truth and just have an uphill battle with the ones in power to prove it to the people.

The sad thing is even when the truth hits many people right in the face with facts they are persuaded into denial by the same propanganda machine run by the Zionists' that control the spoon fed Media so that the word does not get out to the people...so .....Shame on you Verm....for being just another puppet of the MSM that has got his eyes closed and his mind shut down to the real truth.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

You want to say "lift" and "blown down" mean the same thing. Not according to the dictionary; they are completely contrary directions.

I love how you sling accusations around of me ignoring statements, all while ignoring Komorowski's statement. It is classic truther cognitive dissonance: ignore that which shatters your delusions and pretend like it doesn't exist.

This is obviously the case since you cannot and have not offered any reconciliation on the difference between you and your source's beliefs about the wind direction, and contrary statements from Komorowski and Jonas.

Merry Xmas to me and the rational for this fine example.

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.

This is also classic.

Just because Capt Obvious/ImaPepper/etc referred to you as Brian once, and I've read it, then that also means that I'm him too, just cuz I use your name occasionally.

Proof that you're not thinking rationally, but that what it takes in the first place to become a truther.

Since January of this year, you've piled up 1,437 posts (with just THIS account), 99% of them have been related to 9/11, and chances are every single one of those posts (I only checked ~ 7) have been made with the intent of derailing a thread.

Isn't this against forum policy? Where are the mods? How can a single user make THIS many senseless derailing posts and not get banned? The mind reels.

It doesn't really matter if you are Imapepper, Capt Obvious, whatever, whoever. Your posts, every single one of them, are useless, degrading, off topic of the OP, and almost always insulting. You break forum rules on a regular basis, and for reason, are still allowed to post here.

I'm sure it's funny and entertaining to you to get a negative and angry rise out of people on these boards who stand up for what they believe. I'm sure you parents are really proud of who you've become. If you truly believe our corrupted government that's fine, but is it really necessary to troll threads for the sole intent of attempting to ridicule people? Really? Because in the eyes of a regular person like me, that's all you do. Take a look in the mirror dude and maybe someday you'll realize that, even if the whole 9/11 thing is exactly as the OS claims, you've still waisted months and months of your time just to aggrivate and insult people.

What you should realize is that most of the people who you call "Truthers" started out just like everyone else - we saw planes hit the building on TV and heard that Al Qaida attacked us. The only difference is, the "Truthers" saw the flaws in the story, and we made up our own minds. We don't believe everything we hear on TV. If CNN says jump, I don't ask "how high?". To a degree, I sincerely hope that you and some of your buddies here ARE paid to derail threads, because it would be really unfortunate for you if you actually believe in everything you post.

Now before you click that reply button to flame/insult/bash/whatever poor little P1DrummerBoy, make yourself aware that I am one of the many individuals serving in the US Military. I go to work everyday so people like you can continue to post senseless, pointless, derailing threads on ATS. So go ahead, degrade the military. I wouldn't put it past you.

Off topic
ANOK, thanks for all your posts

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
make yourself aware that I am one of the many individuals serving in the US Military. I go to work everyday so people like you can continue to post senseless, pointless, derailing threads on ATS. So go ahead, degrade the military. I wouldn't put it past you.

#1- my join date was June, 2009, so you didn't even get that right.

#2- going on an off topic, derailing rant about off topic derailing is just too funny.

#3- however, my original post about wind direction was in response to the OP's reapeating a lie about what direction the wind was in the stairwells during the collapse. If he was responding to someone else's ot reply, well then he should have just ignored it to keep things on topic.

#4- I have thoroughly refuted the lie he has repeated. He will not attempt to reconcile the opposing statements from Komorowski and Jonas, for any thinking human being realizes that there cannot be an upward blowing wind AND a downward blowing wind 20-30 feet apart. Any thinking, rationl human being realizes that both cannot be correct, and therefore, a more thorough examination of the statements must be made. I have presented the stronger statement from Komorowski, and BSBray's source also presents a stronger statement from Jonas. The logical next course of action would be to determine if Kross (not Croft) actually stated that the wind, in his opinion, was blowing upwards. However, we find that no where does he actually give this opinion. Instead, we find the source making some assumptions. Assumptions that ignore clearer statements from Komorowski And Jonas (not Jones).

Instead, he hides behind baseless accusations in order to prevent him admitting that he is wrong. Ego issues, I suspect. Or cognitive dissonance.

And it is not wrong to point out for lurkers and the undecided that this is how discussions with truthers usually go. THEY can see that I have the stronger evidence and statements. THEY can see that his belief is based on mere assumptions and poor quality conjecture.