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

reply to post by ANOK


They were dropping on the ground with a speed close to that of sound. The impact took care of that.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by plube
I find it hard to understand why it is so easy to believe the OS when the Evidence does not back up that debris within 130m should send tons out 130m horizontally just due to gravity....It is beyond my comprehension.

Thats funny because I find it hard to believe that it could be anything but gravity. Where else could such a huge force come from that eject very heavy steel beams over 100 meters?

Gravity only works in one direction. Down. If these steel beams are being ejected over 100 meters, it's not due to gravity. If something from the top of the building was toppling over, so to speak, it could likely land a good distance away from the buildings footprint, but not 100 meters.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Why would resistance make the collapse asymmetrical? I think the evidence for resistance is compelling. Pulverized concrete, ejecting debris.

Because of the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. If an object hits resistance it will take the path of least resistance and fall in another direction. A perfectly symmetrical collapse means there was nothing in the way to cause the collapse to fall asymmetrically.

This is what happens when resistance gets in the way of a demolition...







...and they were controlled demolitions. There is even less chance a natural collapse will be perfectly symmetrical.

You really should know this stuff before trying to argue with people.

Originally posted by -PLB-
How do you determine that more than 50% of the debris was ejected to the sides? And can you share your methodology to determine this?

Again, my method is looking at the debris pile afterward, and then looking at the actual collapse and asking "can I see a similar amount of debris being ejected in all directions during the actual collapse?" And the answer is "yes." It's a very simple process that anyone can see for themselves.

Again, have you actually looked at these pictures, or are you glossing over them out of bias?


Before:





After:











During:

Personally I see a huge cloud of debris in your pictures, which obscures most of what is going on.

That "huge cloud of debris" is the point, actually.

even if the mass in the footprint was lower than 50% it does not invalidate the gravity driven progressive collapse theory. It just invalidates Bazant model as valid proof of it. Nevertheless it would still be strong evidence that the theory is a very plausible explanation for the collapse.

And since Bazant's argument is the strongest for even the theoretical possibility of a "gravity driven progressive collapse theory," that's not good for your argument.

reply to post by -PLB-


wow now i know you are completely nuts...and your masters is completey invalid now...i will now rip your statment apart.....terminal velocity due to acceleration by gravity such as a sky diver...approximately 120-125mph

speed of sound depending on the medium...but in air...approximately 760mph

hmmm strange that is,,,,,,wow....as to another force other than gravity that could achieve the horizontal explusion of debris...EXPLOSIVES

NOTE:shall we do some maths...towers height..approx 1000ft....aprox 300m 10 secs to fall...30m/s ....speed of sound approx 340m/s

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

They were dropping on the ground with a speed close to that of sound. The impact took care of that.

Really?

And how did that happen with all that resistance from undamaged structure holding it all up in the first place?

You can't even explain how the collapses initiated, let alone continued to collapse 'close to the speed of sound' [sic] through the path of most resistance.

You're not explaining anything at all, just making empty statements.

reply to post by plube


Are you saying the 3 you pointed out are the only ones to be found on ground zero that show no clear deformation, and I won't be able to find other ones? If that is the case, you are not making a good argument for your thermite theory.

Originally posted by ANOK
Really?

And how did that happen with all that resistance from undamaged structure holding it all up in the first place?

Because the downward force was much greater as the resistance, as explained in Bazants work.

You can't even explain how the collapses initiated, let alone continued to collapse 'close to the speed of sound' through the path of most resistance.

You're not explaining anything at all, just making empty statements.

I can explain it fine. That doesn't mean that you accept it as valid though.

reply to post by -PLB-


don't be rediculous...one anomally would be enough to mean a major investigation....not that was one photo i just happened across...now where are all the beams.....oh right as i said before...a slow boat to china...Get my drift.
but i am sure i can find a few more images that back me up now if i can find one or two then i am sure there would have been more....but i remind of your last frivolous statement that i will no longer approach as an intelligent being....foolish me for allowig myself to actually care enough to explain points to you.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because the downward force was much greater as the resistance, as explained in Bazants work.

That's why Bazants work is BS. What force was greater than the resistance? The only force acting on the collapse was gravity, something the buildings had been designed to resist.

Can you in your own words explain how the force was greater than the resistance?

I can explain it fine. That doesn't mean that you accept it as valid though.

Well then explain it, because so far you have only shown, with every statement, that you can't explain it.
You can only harp on about Bazant and HIS work. I reject Bazants work, so you only have YOUR work to try to convince me. I believe you only THINK you know what you're talking about because you believe Bazant. I'm not debating Bazant I'm debating YOU. I don't think you even understand Bazants work, that's why you're struggling to make sense.

reply to post by ANOK


I for one too totally dimiss Bazant's work as complete and utter hogwash as his own absolutely proves that progressive collapse did not occur...as the top section would be required to remain INTACT for the duration of the collapse...UNTIL it hit the ground.....other than that any other senario says the collapse would have arrested itself after say 20,30 even possibly but highly unlikely 40 floors.
Plus in the early phases the top was undergoing a rotation and that said rotation should have continued...but it stopped....the question is...WHY?.

reply to post by -PLB-


Watch this...



Does that not look just a little similar to this...

Originally posted by plube
Plus in the early phases the top was undergoing a rotation and that said rotation should have continued...but it stopped....the question is...WHY?.

The only way that can happen is if the pivot point suddenly 'disappears'. The only way it could 'disappear' is it dropped independent of the top section.

Those vids I just posted shows that demolition method. We don't see the bottom collapsing on it's own because of all the dust.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you closely look at the collapse. all the inner core columns had to be destroyed before gravity could have ejected all the material out. otherwise only the top of the buildings would have slid off. there really cannot be any other explanation due to the design of the buildings. each floor is independent

reply to post by ANOK


When a body starts falling, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The resulting dynamic load is much greater than the static load the building was designed to resist. You can test this yourself by jumping on a weighing machine.

All i can say is it is absolutely disgracful how people think that people who support the Truth movement are uneducated bafoons that really haven't got a clue on physics...building construction....material sciences...Flight and aircraft control and engineering....Demolition...and any other occupation that has to do with what happpened on the day of 9/11.
Also what they think we get out of coming on to the site and showing them through research patience...practical knowledge...and just the Average joe with heaps of common sense....that all was not as it seemed on 9/11.
If i wasn't so adament about being lied to by the same professional bodies that i support...and by the same Elites who think they can just get away with killing off people of this planet through a huge False Flag operation....i swear i would just say forget it and give up.
But there is no way i will let these Criminals get away with these crimes to humanity....They all who are involved should have to one day face the people....This was not just a crime on America...this was a crime against the world.

reply to post by bsbray11


My claim is that the explosions were not CD. This is because there is no physical evidence of CD. No spent blasting caps, wires, detonators, unexploded charges, videos of CD, secret orders, confessions, witnesses to demolition teams, copper coated cuts in beams, or anthing else. As there is no evidence for CD and you can't provide any, the claimed explosions must have been random noises and explosions in the fires and collapse.

reply to post by -PLB-


please dont try your simple physics here anymore PLB....you proved by your statment that the buildings falling near the speed of sound is what crushed them shows you have not a clue....all your statments now make you look even more like your ignorance is being worn on your forehead.
It takes work to show things and to present them...and time wasted on you is not worth it...IMHO

reply to post by plube


You have to admit your paint can model was either very stupid or very dishonest. You also have to agree that you haven't been able to produce a single piece physics that prove you are right while you have claimed several times it is very simple. But it is good that you take it so hard, as neither of the things I write here are to be proud of. Nor are all those personal attacks your posts are filled with by the way.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

When a body starts falling, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The resulting dynamic load is much greater than the static load the building was designed to resist. You can test this yourself by jumping on a weighing machine.

What was the static load the towers were designed to resist? What was the dynamic load of the falling top. Can you tell me?

(I was going to explain why you are misunderstanding 'potential energy', but that was easier lol)

Edit; wait scrap all that, because even before we get to this part you are ignoring the evidence that the top of WTC 2 could not have done any dynamic loading in the first place, and had nothing to do with the collapse of the rest of the building...

So back to square one eh?